

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
While the spoiled offspring of millionaires and billionaires skip out on taxes, Republicans want to take food stamp benefits away from millions of poor kids.
Republicans want to stop subsidizing Americans who benefit from government-funded health programs. But by far the greatest American subsidies go to the millionaires, the 10% of Americans who own 93 percent of the stock market.
That's in part because of the so-called tax expenditures, which include mortgage deductions, interest and dividend exclusions, and reduced rates on capital gains, and which go almost entirely to the 13.7% of Americans who report enough income to itemize their taxes. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "the cost of all federal income tax expenditures was higher than..the combined cost of Medicare and Medicaid."
A 2015 NBER study found that 70 percent of federal spending on housing was in the form of tax-based deductions that largely benefit the rich. Families with expensive homes can take a tax break of up to a half-million dollars when they decide to sell. And the wealthiest among us can take a mortgage interest deduction for a second home, which might even be a yacht.
Yet while the millionaires subsidize their estates, the proposed Republican budget would make drastic cuts to low-income housing programs.
Daddy-Made Millionaires
It gets worse. The tax designers have figured out how to gift their heirs with billions in redirected tax revenue. In a massive subsidy for the super-rich, the tax code includes a so-called stepped-up provision which allows the super-rich to leave much of their multi-trillion-dollar stock market fortunes to their children with all the accumulated gains magically erased, and thus, in many instances, without a single dollar in taxes coming due.
If daddy and mommy's stock has grown from $10 to $100 over the years, the kids won't pay any taxes on that $90 gain, and society's potential revenue is wiped out. As baby boomers age and pass away, more and more privileged children will become accidental millionaires.
Yet while the kids of millionaires skip out on taxes, Republicans want to take food stamp benefits away from millions of poor kids.
Subsidies on American Lives
With regard to big business subsidies, economist Dean Baker says: "These government-granted monopolies likely transfer more than $1 trillion a year ($8,000 per household) from the rest of us to [those] in a position to benefit from them. In 1980 we were spending about 0.4 percent of GDP...on prescription drugs and other pharmaceutical products. Currently we spend more than 2.3 percent of GDP."
Big Pharma welfare forces us to pay much more than other countries for our medicine. According to The National Library of Medicine, "In 2022, U.S. prices across all drugs (brands and generics) were nearly three times as high as prices in 33 OECD comparison countries....In 2022, U.S. prices for insulin products were nearly ten times as high as prices in 33 OECD comparison countries."
And taking the pain to an absurd extreme, Forbes reports that "Sovaldi (a breakthrough treatment for hepatitis C) cost $84,000 for a 12-week course when it was initially launched in the U.S. In contrast, the same treatment is available in other countries, such as India, for less than $1,000."
Yet while medication for the elderly becomes evermore expensive, Republicans have proposed the largest cuts to Medicaid in history, taking health insurance away from millions of Americans.
Republicans: It's Good to Lose Your Medicaid
House Speaker Mike Johnson said, "Work is good for you. You find dignity in work." Oklahoma Senator James Lankford said, "It’s not kicking people off Medicaid..It’s transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care."
Condescending enough?
Republicans say they only want to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. To do this they're wasting lives, defrauding their constituents, and abusing the privilege of leadership.
To win back voters, Democrats should propose a nationwide public fund through a Financial Transaction Tax.
The Alaska Permanent Fund, established by a Republican governor nearly a half-century ago, has allowed Alaskan residents to share in the profits from oil and mineral extraction in the state.
As The New York Times explains, "Similar socialized funds—sometimes called sovereign wealth funds—are common in other conservative states." In fact, The National Interest reports that "the great majority of states that have a domestic sovereign wealth fund are solidly Republican states." Texas, Wyoming, and North Dakota, for example, all maintain multi-billion dollar public wealth funds.
Democrats need to think even bigger if they want to win back respect—and the vote. They need to consider that American productivity goes well beyond oil and gas, that it's the result of 75 years of progress in technology and medicine and finance and numerous other industries, and that it derives from the sweat and inspiration of all of our parents and grandparents. Stock market gains reflect our productive past. All of us should reap some reward from that long-term effort.
All families, rich or poor, would share in America's prosperity.
New wealth should not be taken only by the 10% of Americans who own 93% of the stock market. While the S&P 500 has gained a pre-inflation average of over 10% annually over the past half-century, the returns on that growth have accrued passively to the richest among us.
Large-scale public wealth funds have been proposed to correct the imbalance. Funding will ideally come from a Financial Transaction Tax or some form of levy on market capitalization. The argument for a Financial Transaction Tax has been made for years by Dean Baker and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). An alternative is a small tax on stock holdings. The Peoples Policy Project noted that "at the end of 2017, the market capitalization of listed domestic companies was $32.1 trillion. A one-off 3% market capitalization tax would thus bring in around $1 trillion of assets."
Current U.S. stock value is over $50 trillion. Just a 2% tax on that amount would return $1 trillion. Each one of America's 127.5 million households would earn nearly $8,000 per year. All families, rich or poor, would share in America's prosperity.
Of course, the millionaires who own almost the entirety of the stock market will resist even a small percentage payback to the country that made them rich. Despite the unlikelihood of getting the super-rich to part with their money, there's a good reason—other than the fairness of recognizing society's contribution to long-term wealth gain—for stockholders to embrace an American Permanent Fund. As noted by reliable financial sources, consumer spending directly influences stock market performance. With the massive trillion-dollar surge in consumer spending, stock market growth is likely to make up that tiny transaction or capital holdings tax, and then some.
It's certainly worth paying a nominal amount to stimulate the economy and boost one's own stock portfolio.
But where is the political will to make this happen? Perhaps a proposal by Democrats for a nationwide public fund through a Financial Transaction Tax will convince a cynical middle-class America that the Democratic vision focuses on the needs of society rather than on rich individuals.
"Our economy is crumbling under President Trump's mismanagement," said the head of one progressive group.
The United States economy decelerated during the first quarter of 2025, as businesses braced for sweeping tariffs from U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a Wednesday "advance estimate" from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis—marking the first contraction of the country's real gross domestic product since 2022.
Real GDP declined at an annual rate of 0.3% in January, February, and March of 2025, according to the report. That headline figure is a dramatic turn around from the final quarter of 2024, when real GDP increased 2.4%.
According to the report, "the decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected an increase in imports... and a decrease in government spending." When calculating GDP, imports are subtracted, meaning more imports will yield a lower number.
A number of outlets have cautioned that the 0.3% contraction figure is somewhat misleading. Axios pointed to solid business investment and consumer spending data in the report as evidence "signaling at least some underlying momentum in the economy—at least once volatile measures like trade are stripped out." The New York Times offered similar analysis.
But even with this caveat, the economic picture is less than rosy. "Maybe some of this negativity is due to a rush to bring in imports before the tariffs go up, but there is simply no way for policy advisors to sugar-coat this. Growth has simply vanished," said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at Fwdbonds.
Several observers were quick to point the finger at the Trump administration.
"Our economy is crumbling under President Trump's mismanagement, and today's falling GDP data confirms our slide toward a recession," said Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the progressive group Groundwork Collaborative. "Trump is creating the conditions for a particularly brutal recession."
"It turns out that when you launch a trade war with blanket tariffs, layoff federal workers en masse, cancel federal contracts, and reduce skilled immigration, you will have negative GDP growth," wrote Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on X.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said that "Trump's chaos is clearly and significantly raising the risk of a recession, and the economic warning lights are all flashing red."
In response to the release, markets slipped on Wednesday.
Trump, for his part, took to his social media site Truth Social on Wednesday to say that "This is Biden's Stock Market, not Trump's." He added that "tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers … This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other."
Economists say they think Wednesday's numbers are related to tariffs. According to reporting from the Times, the main takeaway from the report is that consumers and businesses started to modify their behavior even prior to Trumps "Liberation Day" tariffs on April 2, which rattled markets.
A surge in the trade deficit edged GDP into negative territory, said Dean Baker, senior economist for the left-leaning economic think tank the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in a statement on Wednesday. "This was due to massive stockpiling of inventories and purchases of durable goods in anticipation of tariffs."
"The negative GDP number could also mean the end of the big upswing in productivity growth under Biden. This is bad news for both real wage growth and inflation," continued Baker.
"No surprise that GDP took a hit in the first quarter, mainly because the balance of trade blew up as companies imported goods like crazy to front-run tariffs. The more telling number for the future of the expansion was consumer spending, and it grew, but at a relatively weak pace," said Robert Frick, corporate economist with Navy Federal Credit Union, according to CNBC.
Wednesday's report also registered increased inflation. The personal consumption expenditures price index, the Federal Reserve's favored inflation gauge, registered a 3.6% gain for Q1, up from 2.4% in the final quarter of last year.
The numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis come a day after reports of consumer confidence in April dipping to lows not seen since early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
There is still major economic data set to be released this week. On Friday, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its jobs report for the month of April.
This article was updated with a comment from Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).