SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tina smith
Sen. Tina Smith Endorses El-Sayed as He Continues to Dominate With Small-Dollar Donors
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory," Smith said.
Jul 24, 2026
With less than two weeks left before Michigan’s Democratic primary, Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed earned support from another US senator on Thursday, with Sen. Tina Smith praising the progressive as "a fighter."
The endorsement comes as El-Sayed's opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, rakes in massive support from large super PACs but continues to be massively outraised by him among small donors.
Smith (D-Minn.), who is not seeking reelection in 2026, is nevertheless the fourth member of the chamber to endorse El-Sayed, following Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
"I've been a United States senator for nearly nine years. And in that time, I have seen there are basically two kinds of senators," Smith said in a video posted to social media. "There are the ones who go along to get along, that hoard their power, and do everything they can to pacify big money. And then there are the fighters—the ones that are ready to challenge the status quo and fight a system that too often seems like it's rigged for the rich and the powerful."
El-Sayed, she said, was one of the latter, crediting his support for Medicare for All, his longtime union membership, and his refusal to accept corporate PAC money.
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November," Smith said, "because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory."
The endorsement comes as new Federal Election Commission filings released Thursday showed El-Sayed's grassroots fundraising advantage. Between July 1-15, he raised over $2.3 million from individual donors compared to about $921,000 for Stevens during the same period.
The divide is even starker among small donors, where El-Sayed leads Stevens by nearly 9-to-1.
Stevens still has the vast funding advantage thanks to the intervention of powerful outside groups. According to OpenSecrets, the United Democracy Project, the political spending arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has poured nearly $20 million to push her over the line.
Another super PAC, known as A Stronger Michigan, has spent an additional $14 million on ads promoting Stevens. The dark money group that provides nearly all of its funding, Center Forward, has not disclosed its donors and won't be required to do so until after the August 4 primary.
This wave of outside money has helped Stevens remain competitive against El-Sayed. But her struggles to raise money from voters have raised concerns about her ability to perform in the general election against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, who would be expected to suck up the AIPAC funding currently going to Stevens.
While Smith may not have the star power of other Democrats who have backed El-Sayed, journalist Zaid Jilani argued that her endorsement “is a big one” and “a sign [Democrats] think Abdul has a good chance of winning.”
"AIPAC is bailing [Stevens] out right now," he wrote. "But I don’t see why they’d spend on her in a general when Mike Rogers is even friendlier to them."
Journalist Ryan Grim asserted that without AIPAC money for a potential Stevens general election campaign, the Democrats could be forced to pull funding from "Ohio, and Iowa, and Alaska, and so on."
"El-Sayed, meanwhile, has a built-in fundraising base, because he has regular people supporting him, not a super PAC that doesn’t care about Michigan or the Democratic Party," said Grim.
Recent polls show El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than the one enjoyed by Stevens. Recent polls for next month's Democratic primary, however, have been more challenging to parse, with some showing El-Sayed far in front and others showing leads for Stevens.
David Dulio, a political science professor at Oakland University, described the race to OpenSecrets as a “battle for the future of the Democratic Party” between powerful donors and the grassroots.
"The story right now… is that Stevens is dominating with outside funding,” Dulio said. “El-Sayed has momentum, and Stevens has money.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Execution Plain and Simple’: Community Fury in Minneapolis After Deadly Shooting by Federal Agent
Rep. Ilhan Omar demanded that ICE agents "stop terrorizing our communities."
Jan 07, 2026
This a developing story... Please check back for possible updates... WARNING: This post includes graphic footage of the shooting which some people may find disturbing...
Residents of Minneapolis reacted with fury on Wednesday after a woman was shot and killed by a federal immigration agent.
Emily Heller, a Minneapolis resident who witnessed the shooting, told Minnesota Public Radio that she saw a federal agent confronting a woman who was sitting in her car and telling her to leave the area during an immigration enforcement operation in the neighborhood.
"She was trying to turn around, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in," Heller told MPR. "And he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face like three, four times."
The identity of the woman shot by the agent has not yet been released, but US Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote in a social media post that the woman was a US citizen.
The senator also said that "ICE should leave now for everyone's safety."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is also demanding that ICE leave the city, according to a post from the city's official X account.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) echoed Smith and Frey's calls for ICE to get out of Minneapolis.
"ICE must stop terrorizing our communities and leave our city," she wrote in a social media post.
Others condemned the shooting as a clear case of criminal excessive force that should be treated as murder.
"This is an execution plain and simple," said journalist Krystal Ball in reaction to footage of the killing. "If your Trump love or immigrant hatred has you justifying murder, please seek help."
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz released a statement saying that his public safety team "is working to gather information on an ICE related shooting this morning," while vowing to "share information as we learn more."
"In the meantime, I ask folks to remain calm," Walz added.
One witness, who was in the neighborhood to act as a legal observer, described horrifying scenes to local reporters:
This is what an eyewitness said pic.twitter.com/vQrLkMFpdS
— Sarah Burris (@SarahBurris) January 7, 2026
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, put out a statement acknowledging that an ICE officer had fatally shot the woman and accused her of engaging in "domestic terrorism."
"ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism," the agency claimed, without providing any evidence. "An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement, and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots."
Video footage from scene as well as testimony from witnesses, however, betrayed the agency's version of events. As one social media user said, posting the following video, "Does this look like what you’re claiming?"
Does this look like what you’re claiming pic.twitter.com/4rV8n4LuSd
— Mogana (@MoganaPhilips) January 7, 2026
A separate video from a different angle (Warning: graphic footage), also shows that the individual in the car was trying to turn the vehicle away from officers, not harm anyone:
Here's the video for those who don't have Bluesky pic.twitter.com/vM3Bsfk8Uc
— Hussain (@huspsa) January 7, 2026
Federal officials in the past have made statements about incidents involving protesters that have been flatly contradicted by officers' own body camera footage.
In November, federal prosecutors dropped assault charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood, weeks after her attorney claimed to have seen body camera footage that completely undercut officers' claims.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shut Up... You Should Be Fired': RFK Jr. Sparks Backlash With CDC Purge, School Shooting Remarks
"He is a dangerous man who is determined to abuse his authority to act on truly terrifying conspiracy theories and disinformation," said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.
Aug 28, 2025
Some US elected officials are now calling for the firing of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. amid mass resignations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and comments he made about Wednesday's mass shooting at a Catholic school.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) was the first Democratic lawmaker to call for Kennedy's firing on Wednesday night, shortly after news broke that he had ousted Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Susan Monarez, who had just been confirmed by the US Senate weeks ago. Monarez's firing subsequently triggered several other high-profile resignations at the agency.
"If there are any adults left in the White House, it's well past time they face reality and fire RFK Jr.," she said. "He is a dangerous man who is determined to abuse his authority to act on truly terrifying conspiracy theories and disinformation—leaving us unprepared for the next deadly pandemic and snuffing out potential cures while he's at it."
Kennedy further angered his critics when he appeared on Fox News Thursday morning and not only defended the purge of the CDC, but also baselessly linked this week's mass shooting at the Annunciation Church in Minneapolis with the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a class of drugs commonly used to treat clinical depression.
While speaking with the hosts of "Fox & Friends," Kennedy said that "we're launching studies on the potential contribution of some of the SSRI drugs and some of the other psychiatric drugs that might be contributing to violence" such as the shooting in Minneapolis on Wednesday that left two children dead and 17 other people wounded.
This drew the ire of Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who profanely called out Kennedy for peddling misinformation.
"I dare you to go to Annunciation School and tell our grieving community, in effect, guns don't kill kids, antidepressants do," she wrote in a social media post. "Just shut up. Stop peddling bullshit. You should be fired."
She then wrote a follow-up post in which she noted that "there are 400 million guns in this country," which is larger than the entire population of the US.
"In America, we are 10 times more likely to be shot in a school or playground than any other developed nation," she said.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) didn't explicitly call for Kennedy to be fired, although he labeled the HHS secretary's actions "disgraceful."
"What is happening at the CDC is truly a five-alarm fire and not receiving nearly enough attention," he wrote. "RFK Jr.'s undermining of our public health institutions will have disastrous consequences for generations."
Democratic lawmakers weren't the only ones calling for Kennedy's firing. Pradheep Shanker, a radiologist who regularly writes for the conservative National Review, also said he'd seen enough of US President Donald Trump's HHS Chief.
"RFK is a complete failure, and is making Trump's health policy look like a complete circus," he said. "If Trump has any credibility, he'll fire RFK."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's Time for Kristi Noem to Resign,' Say Lawmakers After Assault on Padilla
"Every day," warned Sen. Elizabeth Warren, "Donald Trump is making this nation look more and more like a fascist state."
Jun 13, 2025
Sen. Elizabeth Warren put herself alongside other Democratic lawmakers and outside critics who say Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem should resign from office following the assault on Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) at a press event she was holding inside a federal building in Los Angeles on Thursday.
"It's time for Republican Senators to speak up and support an independent investigation into what happened to Senator Padilla," Warren said Friday. "And it's time for Kristi Noem to resign."
"This is not a drill. This is an assault on our democracy." —Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Appearing on MSNBC's "All With With Chris Hayes" Thursday night, Warren explained that the attack on Padilla, who simply wanted to ask Noem questions about the ongoing Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids taking place in Los Angeles and elsewhere, is "something bigger" than a case of mistaken identity or the poor training of the officers who wrestled the Democratic lawmaker to the ground and put him in handcuffs.
"Why was Senator Padilla handcuffed?" said Warren. "He was handcuffed for asking a question. He was handcuffed for doing his job as a senator."
"Anyone who isn't already convinced that the Trump administration is trying to undermine free speech in this country; trying to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with Donald Trump and doesn't bend a knee to Donald Trump—anyone who doesn't believe that's what the Trump administration is doing," said Warren, "needs to watch that video of Senator Padilla being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed simply for trying to ask a question. That's why this is a big deal."
Warren was far from alone in her call for the immediate resignation of Noem, who, following the incident, claimed not to know who Padilla was and falsely stated that he did not identify himself, despite the video showing that he did.
"Kristi Noem should resign in disgrace," said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who also accused the secretary and her underlings at DHS of lying about the incident.
"Resign now, Kristi Noem," echoed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) in a social media post.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the pro-democracy watchdog group Public Citizen, called the attack on Padilla "utterly unacceptable" and held the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible.
"This was an open event, and the senator was there to do his job and represent his state," said Gilbert. "Answering the questions of a sitting U.S. senator with assault is a blatant abuse of power, demonstrating the Trump administration's increasingly brazen authoritarian tendencies."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also weighed in, saying that those responsible for the treatment of Padilla must be held to account.
"The assault in California by federal agents against my colleague Sen. Alex Padilla was outrageous, and those responsible must be held accountable," said Sanders. "Tragically, what happened to Sen. Padilla today is becoming normal behavior for a Trump administration which is moving us toward authoritarianism."
In a floor speech in the U.S. Senate following the assault on Padilla, Warren called on her Senate colleagues to condemn Noem's actions and the increasingly authoritarian moves by Trump's cabinet and federal agencies under his command.
"Every day, Donald Trump is making this nation look more and more like a fascist state," Warren warned.
"This is not a drill. This is an assault on our democracy," she declared. "I am calling on my Republican colleagues to join us in demanding a bipartisan investigation into this incident. What happened at this press conference was disgraceful. It was un-American. And every member of the United States Senate should condemn it and condemn it now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Social Security Hearing Shows Trump Pick Bisignano Would Worsen 'DOGE-Manufactured Chaos'
"Social Security needs a commissioner whose loyalty is to beneficiaries, not Elon Musk," said one advocate.
Mar 25, 2025
As Democrats on the U.S. Senate Finance Committee grilled financial services executive Frank Bisignano at his confirmation hearing to oversee Social Security on Tuesday, a progressive think tank reported that the Trump administration's cuts to the popular program have already created "unnecessary barriers for millions of beneficiaries to access the benefits they earned."
President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed he is "not touching" Social Security benefits, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) said his insistence "may be a distinction without a difference if his administration's actions delay benefits or make it harder to get them in the first place."
The group outlined four ways in which Trump and Elon Musk, the billionaire tech CEO who he named as head of the advisory board he created to slash public spending, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have created "the potential for significant damage to the program" without taking action to explicitly make cuts to the benefits relied on by 73 million retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors of deceased parents.
Trump and Musk have worked to weaken Social Security by:
- Launching rhetorical attacks on the program, including false claims of massive fraud—providing a pretext for actions that could undermine eligible beneficiaries' access to benefits, such as privatization;
- Engaging in deep cuts to staffing and new restrictions on phone-based services for the public, likely leading to the overwhelming of Social Security offices across the country, dozens of which are set to close this year under DOGE orders;
- Jeopardizing the reliability of the Social Security Administration (SSA) systems, including through the sharp reduction of staff with technical expertise; and
- Threatening the security of people's personal information by giving untrained DOGE political appointees unprecedented access to sensitive SSA data.
In recent weeks, longtime employees of the SSA have shed light on the impact of DOGE cutting 12% of the staff, with the former acting chief of staff to acting Commissioner Leland Dudek, Tiffany Flick, saying in a court filing before her retirement in February that DOGE's "disregard for critical processes... and lack of interest in understanding [SSA's] systems and programs... combined with the significant loss of expertise as more and more agency personnel leave, have me seriously concerned that SSA programs will continue to function and operate without disruption."
But at Bisgnano's confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Democratic lawmakers were alarmed by his refusal to acknowledge the damage done by DOGE at SSA.
Noting that Bisignano has referred to himself as a "DOGE guy," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked the nominee what grade he would give Musk's advisory body's activities at the SSA over the past two months.
"I look around and I see phones out of whack, offices out of whack, databases being invaded," said Wyden. "I'm not sure I'd give them a very good grade, but you're a 'DOGE guy.'"
Bisignano did not answer the direct question, instead saying he has spent his career pursuing "employee satisfaction" and "increasing control."
"What kind of grade would you give the DOGE people at Social Security?" - @wyden.senate.gov Bisignano refuses to answer the question.
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 25, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) told reporters after the hearing that with Bisignano signaling he is "all in on DOGE... I see no reason to trust that he is going to do anything but be an enthusiastic participant in what Elon Musk and Donald Trump are trying to do to Social Security, which is to cause it, as far as I can see, to collapse from the inside."
Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, noted that Bisignano's career in financial services has been "right in line with DOGE."
"He cut staffing to the bone and reportedly created toxic work environments," said Altman. "If he is confirmed, the now toxic work environment at SSA will likely get worse."
Wyden's questioning of Bisignano also revealed that the nominee was involved in discussions about DOGE at the agency, with Bisignano claiming that he was not before the senator produced a statement from a senior official saying the nominee insisted "on personally approving DOGE hires at the agency."
"Today's hearing showed that Frank Bisignano is not the cure to the DOGE-manufactured chaos at the Social Security Administration. In fact, he is part of it, and, if confirmed, would make it even worse," said Altman. "Social Security needs a commissioner whose loyalty is to beneficiaries, not Elon Musk. Bisignano would not even contradict Musk's slander that Social Security is a criminal Ponzi scheme. Every senator who cares about Social Security's future should vote no on the confirmation of Frank Bisignano. He is not only unqualified, with no expertise regarding this vital program—he is dangerous to it."
While Democrats expressed outrage over the administration's efforts to gut the program that 40% of American retirees rely on as their primary source of income, one of the Republicans on the committee, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) explicitly gave Bisignano his blessing to "go after [Social Security] the way you would in the private sector."
"With his comments today in support of Social Security office closures, Sen. Tillis revealed the fact that protecting seniors and the disabled is an afterthought for congressional Republicans and that they have one true agenda—gutting vital programs like Social Security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires," said Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Kobie Christian. "The 73 million Americans currently receiving Social Security are not numbers on a balance sheet that Republicans should 'go after.' They are everyday people who worked hard to earn their benefits. It's time that members of Congress stop this crusade on families across the country and put an end to this pro-billionaire agenda."
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, the changes at SSA that Tillis endorsed and called for more of include the agency's website crashing four times in 10 days recently, panicked beneficiaries being forced to wait on hold for up to 4-5 hours, and employees left wondering whether they will receive proper training to verify people's identities at field offices as the agency prepares to end phone services at the direction of the White House.
At the hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) explained how those changes are in fact cuts to Social Security benefits—no matter how many times Trump claims otherwise.
If a 65-year-old retiree can't use the SSA's phone service to verify his identity and apply for benefits and has to wait for a family member to get a day off work to drive him two hours to the only understaffed SSA office in the area that hasn't been closed, she said, "let's assume it takes our fellow three months to straighten this out and he misses a total of $5,000 in benefits checks, which, by law, he will never get back."
"Is that a benefit cut?" Warren asked.
Bisignano did not answer the question, saying he wasn't sure "what to call" the scenario described by the senator.
"DOGE is considering slashing up to 50% of the Social Security Administration's workforce. That means longer lines, and more errors. For everyone who gives up or who dies before they get their benefits sorted out, it is a benefit cut." - @warren.senate.gov
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 25, 2025 at 12:06 PM
Bisignano claimed at the hearing that he will "run the SSA in a way that properly serves beneficiaries," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "But that will be impossible if he does not undo the reckless policies that acting Commissioner Leland Dudek has put in place under the influence of Elon Musk and DOGE, with the implied consent of President Trump, which have seriously disrupted customer service for seniors and people with disabilities."
"Significantly and alarmingly, Bisignano would not commit to ending Musk and DOGE's interference at SSA, nor to reversing any of their dangerous policies," said Richtman. "He cannot live up to his promises to put the interests of beneficiaries first if the man who recently called Social Security a Ponzi scheme continues to call the shots."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Must Repeal Its Cap on Public Housing Now
The Faircloth Amendment and the consistent underfunding of public housing has caused the number of public housing units to decline 40% from 1.4 million in 1994 to 835,000 in 2022 while the need has steadily increased.
Dec 13, 2024
Randall Irvin has been waiting for public housing in Chicago for six years, and his situation is not that unusual. For example, there are over 100,000 families on San Antonio’s waitlist for public housing. In Chicago, there were more than 200,000 families on the waitlist in 2023. Public housing waiting lists are extremely long because there is an inadequate supply—and a 1998 amendment to federal housing law is a significant barrier to building new housing.
Table 1 lists the average number of months households waited before they were able to receive public housing in selected metropolitan areas according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It ranges from a low of 11 months in San Antonio to a high of 84 months (seven years) in Miami. These numbers hide the wide range of variation around the average. In the city of Chicago, families can wait for as few as six months or as long as 25 years depending on the specifics of their situation and their family size. Households that are still waiting for housing or that never receive housing are not included in the calculation of the averages, so these average wait times do not fully capture the difficulty of obtaining public housing.
The families remaining on public housing waitlists for housing for years are in desperate situations. They are people who are homeless, who are living in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and who are struggling to afford their housing. In Washington, D.C., Rosalynn Talley, who waited 14 years for public housing, described her overcrowded housing situation as being “smashed up like sardines.” Her neighborhood was also unsafe, and there was mold in the house.
Congress is to blame for the low supply of public housing. In 1998, Congress passed the Faircloth Amendment which put a cap on the number of public housing units. The cap and the consistent underfunding of public housing has caused the number of public housing units to decline 40% from 1.4 million in 1994 to 835,000 in 2022 while the need for affordable housing has steadily increased.
Public housing is one of the most affordable forms of housing, but affordable housing policy has shifted to relying on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). LIHTC goes to private developers and investors and creates “affordable” housing that is often more expensive to renters than public housing. The Joint Center for Housing Studies reports that “LIHTC [housing] does not necessarily protect a renter from [housing] cost burdens.” While the Faircloth Amendment has been a benefit to the for-profit real estate industry, it has hurt low-income renters.
Thankfully, there are some in Congress working to undo this bad law. The Homes Act, introduced by Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), if passed, would repeal the Faircloth Amendment and provide the funding needed to address the maintenance and repair backlog in public housing. Currently, the bill has 40 supporters in the House of Representatives and two supporters in the Senate. Repealing the Faircloth Amendment would open another channel to address the affordable housing crisis.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Wall Street Landlords Love a Housing Shortage
And how a new social housing bill introduced Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Tina Smith aims to address the crisis harming families and communities nationwide.
Sep 24, 2024
In its most recent year-end letter, the private equity firm Blackstone gave its stockholders a seemingly counterintuitive assurance: the lack of new housing stock was reason for optimism.
Why does a stagnant growth in new living spaces benefit Blackstone? Because it is the nation’s largest corporate landlord. For the firm and its investors, chronic housing shortages mean more power to set prices and more leverage to extract wealth from vulnerable working-class tenants.
Blackstone’s letter reveals the malevolent and distortionary role private equity plays in our residential real estate market and underscores the fundamental problem with housing commodification writ large.
Our market-based system simply does not give the private sector incentives to meet the public’s demand for high-quality, permanently affordable housing. Providing it would be against the sector’s economic interests since new supply would bring down prices and negatively impact profitability.
Social housing will make certain that housing is treated as a public good that satisfies a social need, not a financial asset to profit off of.
The negative effects of housing commodification are all around us. For-profit investors are snatching up properties at an alarming rate – 1 in 6 of all residential homes in the second quarter of this year – giving them the power to charge residents junk fees on top of rent increases.
As a result, a record number of renter households – 22.4 million individuals and families, half of all renters – are now paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent and other housing-related expenses. This places a significant strain on household budgets and contributes to a range of problems related to mental health including anxiety and depression.
Tenant unions and working-class institutions across the country have spent years fighting back against the financialization of housing, organizing their communities against speculators in favor of greater tenant protections and fighting for housing to be a human right.
A promising step in this direction was taken last week when Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced new legislation designed to solve our acute affordability crisis.
The Homes Act would invest in the construction of new social housing while dedicating resources to rehabilitate the existing stock. The bill proposes to establish a Housing Development Authority, authorizing $300 billion over the next ten years for the new department to finance and develop permanently affordable housing. It would also repeal the obsolete Faircloth Amendment, a provision that effectively limits the availability of public housing, removing structural barriers to the construction of new public units.
Rents would be capped at 25 percent of a household’s income for tenants, greatly easing the burden of housing for them.
Perhaps the most innovative aspect of the bill is the importance it places on equity and democracy. The new units will be built by union workers; priority will be given to protect underserved communities of color from displacement; a significant share of the affordable housing stock will be earmarked for households with low incomes; and many of the new homes will be placed under democratic and community control when transferred to eligible entities like community land trusts and tenant-owned cooperatives.
The emphasis on permanence in the provision of social housing is critical for understanding housing struggles today. Permanent affordability will not only begin the process of decommodification, but it will also protect buildings from private equity firms who see affordable housing as another sector they can plunder.
Affordable housing already accounts for eight percent of Blackstone’s BREIT portfolio, but there is no genuine commitment to providing reasonably priced homes to working-class households. The firm has opened its coffers more than once to defeat rent control ballot initiatives and it exploits programs like the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) to secure the tax benefits that come with investing in affordable housing. Yet Blackstone still raises rents, evicts tenants, and underinvests in maintenance.
The permanence of affordability is the cornerstone of social housing. Social housing will make certain that housing is treated as a public good that satisfies a social need, not a financial asset to profit off of. Only when speculators and concentrated wealth are reined in will we solve the housing crisis and guarantee safe, healthy, affordable, and dignified homes for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocasio-Cortez, Smith Push Bill to Create Social Housing Authority
"Because we believe that housing is a human right, like food or healthcare, we believe that more Americans deserve the option of social housing."
Sep 18, 2024
"It's becoming nearly impossible for working-class people to buy and keep a roof over their heads. Congress must respond with a plan that matches the scale of this crisis."
That's according to U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who on Wednesday introduced the Homes Act in a New York Times opinion piece and an event with supporters of the proposal on Capitol Hill.
"Because we believe that housing is a human right, like food or healthcare, we believe that more Americans deserve the option of social housing," the pair wrote in the Times. "That's why we're introducing the Homes Act, a plan to establish a new, federally backed development authority to finance and build homes in big cities and small towns across America. These homes would be built to last by union workers and then turned over to entities that agree to manage them for permanent affordability: public and tribal housing authorities, cooperatives, tenant unions, community land trusts, nonprofits, and local governments."
"Our housing development authority wouldn't be focused on maximizing profit or returns to shareholders," the congresswomen continued. "Rent would be capped at 25% of a household's adjusted annual gross income. Homes would be set aside for lower-income families in mixed-income buildings and communities. And every home would be built to modern, efficient standards, which would cut residents' utility costs. Renters wouldn't have to worry about the prospect of a big corporation buying up the building and evicting everyone. Some could even come together to purchase their buildings outright."
In addition to establishing the new authority under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the bill would repeal the Faircloth Amendment, which prevents the use of federal money for building new public homes. Under the new plan, construction would be funded by congressional spending and Treasury-backed loans.
"In New York, the average worker would need to clock in 104 hours a week to afford a one-bedroom apartment," Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. "This country is staring down a full-blown housing crisis. A crisis where affordable housing is slipping out of reach."
"This bill would create more than 500,000 jobs and create 1.25 million affordable housing units," she noted, declaring that "everyone deserves a place to call home."
It's not just New York City where lower-wage people are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Smith pointed out that "more than 90% of workers cannot afford a modest one-bedroom apartment. Americans across the country are bidding for homes against the wealthiest financial firms and they're losing."
"We have a severe housing crisis," she stressed. "The private market cannot meet this moment on its own. The Homes Act meets peoples' needs through social housing."
As Jacobin's Samuel Stein wrote Wednesday:
The housing system sketched out in the Homes Act looks nothing like what we are used to in the United States. Though we have an important social housing legacy, we have never normalized decommodification as the cornerstone of our housing system.
Introducing legislation like the Homes Act does not accomplish that goal in and of itself, but it offers us a concrete depiction of what that transition could look like. It also highlights the severe disjuncture between what our housing and urban planning system does right now—promote private profits in real estate while minimizing the public provision of housing—and what we need it to do.
The goal of legislation like this is not to pass it immediately, since no sober person would expect the current U.S. Congress to line up in support. Nor is the goal to supplant the messy work of organizing with the schematic and technical language of legislation. Instead, the point is to inspire organizing: to show that the status quo is not the only way our housing could operate, to give tenant organizations a concrete and affirmative vision to build toward, and to offer socialist candidates for office a platform to run on.
The bill to create a social housing authority—introduced less than two months out from the U.S. general election—is backed by the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and its affiliates from across the country.
"Working families are being forced to make sacrifices in order to pay the skyrocketing cost of keeping a roof over their heads, while corporate landlords and Wall Street executives are getting even richer," said CPD co-executive directors Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper. "This legislation provides a clear alternative to for-profit housing. It creates a framework to make community-owned, permanently affordable green social housing a reality."
Advocates from both sponsors' states also spoke out in favor of the bill.
"In Greater Minnesota, counties and towns don't have staff to build affordable housing projects, financing is another huge issue. We don’t have as many philanthropic organizations or financial institutions as urban areas," explained Noah Hobbs, policy director at One Roof Community Housing in Duluth. "This bill is the first real investment we've had in years. We're incredibly proud to endorse this legislation."
Aisha Hernandez, secretary of the Coalition to Save Affordable Housing at Co-op City in the Bronx, said that "cooperative housing gave me the ability to co-own my home. A few years ago, my neighbors and I came together to ensure our housing stays affordable, that our management is working in the interest of homeowners and prevent any corporate takeover of Co-op City."
"We are co-owners, not at the whims of corporate landlords," Hernandez added. "I want my fellow Americans to have the same access to housing that co-op has afforded me. This bill has the ability to do that. So let's get it done."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups, Dems Don't Buy Johnson's Claim He Won't Push Federal Abortion Ban
"Mike Johnson's flip-flopping on abortion just proves our movement is winning and that Republicans know they're losing," one advocate said.
May 11, 2024
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he would not attempt to ban abortion on the federal level, a claim that earned instant skepticism from reproductive rights groups.
Johnson's remarks came as part of an interview published by Politico on Friday, as Johnson responded to questions from Politico's Ryan Lizza and Rachael Bade:
Lizza: Some like lightning round questions: Do you anticipate putting forward any legislation on abortion before the election?
No.
Bade: If there is Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the White House next year, do you anticipate passing any sort of nationwide abortion ban?
No, I don't.
President Trump said this is in the states' purview now. After the Dobbs decision, I think that's where it is. Look, I am a lifelong pro-lifer. I’m a product of a teen pregnancy. And so I believe in the sanctity of human life. It's also an important article of faith for me. But I have 434 colleagues here. All of us have our own, philosophical principles that we live by, but you have to have a political consensus.
In response to Johnson's answer, Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju said it reflected a growing awareness among Republicans that restricting abortion is not politically popular. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, every electoral attempt to protect abortion rights on the state level has succeeded.
"Mike Johnson's flip-flopping on abortion just proves our movement is winning and that Republicans know they're losing," Timmaraju said.
However, she pointed out that "'leaving abortion to the states' is not a moderate position, as 21 states are already enforcing horrifying bans with devastating consequences."
"Don't be conned. They can't be trusted with our rights."
Further, she warned against taking Johnson at his word.
"Voters have made it clear to the GOP that we will not tolerate abortion bans," she continued. "Mike Johnson and congressional Republicans have shown time and time again they are willing to do anything in their power to restrict our reproductive freedom, and we can't trust them."
Other abortion rights and pro-democracy campaigners issued similar warnings.
"The technical political science term for this is 'lying,'" Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin wrote on social media in response to the interview.
Activist Olivia Julianna pointed out that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had called Roe v. Wade "settled precedent" before helping to overturn it in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
Elected Democrats also expressed suspicion.
Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) pointed out that Johnosn was one of 127 Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill to ban abortion at the federal level.
"If he really isn't for a national abortion ban, he should withdrawal his co-sponsorship first thing when we are back next week," Frost wrote on social media.
Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote that "these people have been working to ban abortion and deny women the freedom to control our own bodies their entire careers."
"Don't be conned. They can't be trusted with our rights," she said.
In a second post, she asked incredulously, "I'm really supposed to believe Mike Johnson, the lifelong anti-abortion zealot, is suddenly just going to leave it alone?"
Even if the Republicans did steer clear of a federal ban, it would not be enough to ensure abortion rights in the U.S.
"We demand a federal response to the abortion crisis and call on the press to ask the speaker if he will support federal protections," Timmaraju said. "We demand nothing less from our federal government than locking in the federal right to abortion and expanding access."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Sound Alarm on Push to 'Undermine the Goals of Dodd-Frank'
"We urge the commission to continue to focus on its vital work preserving market integrity and protecting the public, uphold the letter and spirit of the Dodd-Frank Act, and withdraw the proposed rule."
Nov 27, 2023
A trio of Democratic U.S. senators on Monday wrote to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Rostin Behnam expressing their "serious reservations" with the agency's proposed rule on seeded funds and money market funds, a policy the lawmakers warned would "undermine the goals of Dodd-Frank" by rolling back the already weakened financial oversight law.
Passed in the wake of the 2008 global financial meltdown, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act—which was partially rolled back during the Trump administration—overhauled federal financial regulation. In a letter to Behnam, Sens. John Fetterman (Pa.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), and Tina Smith (Minn.) assert that the CFTC's proposed rule is a "step in the wrong direction" that would increase market instability by decreasing collateral requirements for certain transactions.
The Global Markets Advisory Committee, largely made up of finance industry insiders, recommended the proposed rule in 2020 during the Trump administration.
As the letter explains:
The proposed rule would reduce or eliminate initial margin requirements for up to three years for a subset of swap market participants. "Initial margin" is the collateral that participants must set aside when entering swap agreements. Initial margin requirements, along with "variation margin" and other capital requirements, protect counterparties to a swap in the event of a default. Dodd-Frank set up comprehensive rules for swap agreements after they significantly contributed to the 2008 financial crisis and the federal government was forced to bail out Wall Street.
"The 2008 financial crisis showed the dangers that swaps can pose to economic stability, and Dodd-Frank directed regulators, including the CFTC, to require initial margin for uncleared swaps specifically to reduce those risks," the senators wrote. "It is vital for the CFTC to continue upholding its Dodd-Frank mandate and to maintain high standards and safeguards for this important market."
"We urge the commission to continue to focus on its vital work preserving market integrity and protecting the public, uphold the letter and spirit of the Dodd-Frank Act, and withdraw the proposed rule," the lawmakers added.
The collapse earlier this year of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank—both of which benefited from regulatory relief thanks to the 2018 rollback—brought renewed scrutiny on Dodd-Frank's Republican-engineered shortcomings. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who wrote the 2018 banking deregulation law, insisted in March that "there is no need for regulatory reform" in the wake of the banks' failures.
Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, responded to Crapo's assertion by writing that "you have to be hard-core committed to mindless free-market fundamentalism—or truly in thrall to your donors—to insist there's no need for new regulations after Silicon Valley Bank."
Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also wrote a letter to Behman sharing her concerns about the proposed rule. Noting the policy's 2020 introduction, Warren said in her October 10 letter that "it is unclear why the commission is choosing to propose these rules now, three years later, without conducting its own additional analyses of whether the changes are necessary or will strengthen the stability of the domestic financial system."
"I strongly urge the commission not to loosen the existing rules and not to roll back important Dodd-Frank Act reforms," Warren added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy