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
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are advocating for the types of policies most Americans want, argues Margery Eagan. (Photos: Mario Tama/Getty Images; Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)
'Extremists' Like Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Are Actually Closer to What Most Americans Want
Trump ran as a populist, but governs like Marie Antoinette. And a sleeping, scammed America is finally waking up
Jan 11, 2019
"Far left." "Too liberal." "Out of the mainstream." Google U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. You'll see descriptions like these.
"Socialist." "Radical." "Extreme." Google U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the whirling, twirling, dancing phenom out of the Bronx. You'll see words like those.
But are even Ocasio-Cortez's positions all that "fringe" in 2019?
I don't think so.
On "60 Minutes" Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez talked about a 70 percent tax rate for Americans earning more than $10 million a year. She said this would fund a Green New Deal: big money for renewable energy and technologies to avert climate catastrophe.
That's soak-the-rich, prosperity-killing insanity, conservatives claimed.
But many economists, including Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and MIT's Peter Diamond, agree with Ocasio-Cortez. Diamond argued years ago for a top rate of 73 percent. Krugman recently wrote that the "right's denunciation of AOC's 'insane' policy ideas serves as a very good reminder of who is actually insane."
And of who's pulling a fast one: the billionaire campaign donors arguing for debunked trickle-down economics. Why? To keep more of their billions.
But many forget that the top tax rate was more than 90 percent during the 1950s, and 70 percent for all income above $216,000, right up until Ronald Reagan became president, in 1981. He then declared government the enemy and slashed taxes for the rich. Thus ended the most successful period of middle-class economic growth in America's history.
Some of us actually remember those halcyon days. Dad's salary alone was enough to support a middle-class family of four or five, to buy a modest home, get the kids most of the way through college, and still swing a vacation on the Cape in July.
Hard to imagine now. But when the rich paid more, the government built highways and bridges. The MBTA parking garage wasn't collapsing at Alewife station. The Red Line tracks weren't catching on fire.
No one talked about the 1 percent vs. the 99 percent, because income inequality was far less severe and it was hard to conceive of a single human amassing a net worth of, say, $88 billion (Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway) or even $53 million (Robert Iger, CEO of Walt Disney).
Right before Congress passed the Trump millionaire tax giveaway, Pew Research found that 43 percent of voters wanted taxes raised on Americans earning $250,000, nowhere close to $10 million. Sixty percent of Americans already suspected those millionaires weren't paying their fair share.
So why, asks New York magazine's Eric Levitz, do we in the media call Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for Trump's tax scheme, a "moderate" instead of an pro-oligarch extremist? And why is Ocasio-Cortez, with her evidence-based tax proposal, derided as a know-nothing socialist kook?
Meanwhile Warren says she's a capitalist who wants capitalism reasonably regulated again. She wants to regulate Wall Street's big banks. She wants to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her brainchild, as a regulatory check against cheating mortgage lenders, credit companies, and student loan servicers. But the Trump administration, despite ever higher consumer complaints, has gutted its enforcement power.
Aren't we all supposed to oppose corporate cheats?
She also wants Medicare for All and free public college tuition.
So do 70 percent of Americans (85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans). And 79 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans support free public college tuition.
Most Americans also want coverage for preexisting conditions (75 percent), including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
So who is really out of the mainstream? Warren, or Donald Trump and Republicans who've stripped away American's healthcare? Ocasio-Cortez, or Donald Trump and Republicans who oppose what most Americans actually want on everything from healthcare and taxes to minimum wage, gun background checks, climate protections and yes, even immigration? (That last issue, you'll recall, has kept the government shut down for more than two weeks.)
Seems clear to me. Trump ran as a populist, but governs like Marie Antoinette. And a sleeping, scammed America is finally waking up.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Boston Globe
Margery Eagan
Margery Eagan is cohost of WGBH's "Boston Public Radio." Her column appears regularly in the Boston Globe.
"Far left." "Too liberal." "Out of the mainstream." Google U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. You'll see descriptions like these.
"Socialist." "Radical." "Extreme." Google U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the whirling, twirling, dancing phenom out of the Bronx. You'll see words like those.
But are even Ocasio-Cortez's positions all that "fringe" in 2019?
I don't think so.
On "60 Minutes" Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez talked about a 70 percent tax rate for Americans earning more than $10 million a year. She said this would fund a Green New Deal: big money for renewable energy and technologies to avert climate catastrophe.
That's soak-the-rich, prosperity-killing insanity, conservatives claimed.
But many economists, including Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and MIT's Peter Diamond, agree with Ocasio-Cortez. Diamond argued years ago for a top rate of 73 percent. Krugman recently wrote that the "right's denunciation of AOC's 'insane' policy ideas serves as a very good reminder of who is actually insane."
And of who's pulling a fast one: the billionaire campaign donors arguing for debunked trickle-down economics. Why? To keep more of their billions.
But many forget that the top tax rate was more than 90 percent during the 1950s, and 70 percent for all income above $216,000, right up until Ronald Reagan became president, in 1981. He then declared government the enemy and slashed taxes for the rich. Thus ended the most successful period of middle-class economic growth in America's history.
Some of us actually remember those halcyon days. Dad's salary alone was enough to support a middle-class family of four or five, to buy a modest home, get the kids most of the way through college, and still swing a vacation on the Cape in July.
Hard to imagine now. But when the rich paid more, the government built highways and bridges. The MBTA parking garage wasn't collapsing at Alewife station. The Red Line tracks weren't catching on fire.
No one talked about the 1 percent vs. the 99 percent, because income inequality was far less severe and it was hard to conceive of a single human amassing a net worth of, say, $88 billion (Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway) or even $53 million (Robert Iger, CEO of Walt Disney).
Right before Congress passed the Trump millionaire tax giveaway, Pew Research found that 43 percent of voters wanted taxes raised on Americans earning $250,000, nowhere close to $10 million. Sixty percent of Americans already suspected those millionaires weren't paying their fair share.
So why, asks New York magazine's Eric Levitz, do we in the media call Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for Trump's tax scheme, a "moderate" instead of an pro-oligarch extremist? And why is Ocasio-Cortez, with her evidence-based tax proposal, derided as a know-nothing socialist kook?
Meanwhile Warren says she's a capitalist who wants capitalism reasonably regulated again. She wants to regulate Wall Street's big banks. She wants to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her brainchild, as a regulatory check against cheating mortgage lenders, credit companies, and student loan servicers. But the Trump administration, despite ever higher consumer complaints, has gutted its enforcement power.
Aren't we all supposed to oppose corporate cheats?
She also wants Medicare for All and free public college tuition.
So do 70 percent of Americans (85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans). And 79 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans support free public college tuition.
Most Americans also want coverage for preexisting conditions (75 percent), including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
So who is really out of the mainstream? Warren, or Donald Trump and Republicans who've stripped away American's healthcare? Ocasio-Cortez, or Donald Trump and Republicans who oppose what most Americans actually want on everything from healthcare and taxes to minimum wage, gun background checks, climate protections and yes, even immigration? (That last issue, you'll recall, has kept the government shut down for more than two weeks.)
Seems clear to me. Trump ran as a populist, but governs like Marie Antoinette. And a sleeping, scammed America is finally waking up.
Margery Eagan
Margery Eagan is cohost of WGBH's "Boston Public Radio." Her column appears regularly in the Boston Globe.
"Far left." "Too liberal." "Out of the mainstream." Google U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. You'll see descriptions like these.
"Socialist." "Radical." "Extreme." Google U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the whirling, twirling, dancing phenom out of the Bronx. You'll see words like those.
But are even Ocasio-Cortez's positions all that "fringe" in 2019?
I don't think so.
On "60 Minutes" Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez talked about a 70 percent tax rate for Americans earning more than $10 million a year. She said this would fund a Green New Deal: big money for renewable energy and technologies to avert climate catastrophe.
That's soak-the-rich, prosperity-killing insanity, conservatives claimed.
But many economists, including Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and MIT's Peter Diamond, agree with Ocasio-Cortez. Diamond argued years ago for a top rate of 73 percent. Krugman recently wrote that the "right's denunciation of AOC's 'insane' policy ideas serves as a very good reminder of who is actually insane."
And of who's pulling a fast one: the billionaire campaign donors arguing for debunked trickle-down economics. Why? To keep more of their billions.
But many forget that the top tax rate was more than 90 percent during the 1950s, and 70 percent for all income above $216,000, right up until Ronald Reagan became president, in 1981. He then declared government the enemy and slashed taxes for the rich. Thus ended the most successful period of middle-class economic growth in America's history.
Some of us actually remember those halcyon days. Dad's salary alone was enough to support a middle-class family of four or five, to buy a modest home, get the kids most of the way through college, and still swing a vacation on the Cape in July.
Hard to imagine now. But when the rich paid more, the government built highways and bridges. The MBTA parking garage wasn't collapsing at Alewife station. The Red Line tracks weren't catching on fire.
No one talked about the 1 percent vs. the 99 percent, because income inequality was far less severe and it was hard to conceive of a single human amassing a net worth of, say, $88 billion (Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway) or even $53 million (Robert Iger, CEO of Walt Disney).
Right before Congress passed the Trump millionaire tax giveaway, Pew Research found that 43 percent of voters wanted taxes raised on Americans earning $250,000, nowhere close to $10 million. Sixty percent of Americans already suspected those millionaires weren't paying their fair share.
So why, asks New York magazine's Eric Levitz, do we in the media call Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for Trump's tax scheme, a "moderate" instead of an pro-oligarch extremist? And why is Ocasio-Cortez, with her evidence-based tax proposal, derided as a know-nothing socialist kook?
Meanwhile Warren says she's a capitalist who wants capitalism reasonably regulated again. She wants to regulate Wall Street's big banks. She wants to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, her brainchild, as a regulatory check against cheating mortgage lenders, credit companies, and student loan servicers. But the Trump administration, despite ever higher consumer complaints, has gutted its enforcement power.
Aren't we all supposed to oppose corporate cheats?
She also wants Medicare for All and free public college tuition.
So do 70 percent of Americans (85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans). And 79 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans support free public college tuition.
Most Americans also want coverage for preexisting conditions (75 percent), including majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
So who is really out of the mainstream? Warren, or Donald Trump and Republicans who've stripped away American's healthcare? Ocasio-Cortez, or Donald Trump and Republicans who oppose what most Americans actually want on everything from healthcare and taxes to minimum wage, gun background checks, climate protections and yes, even immigration? (That last issue, you'll recall, has kept the government shut down for more than two weeks.)
Seems clear to me. Trump ran as a populist, but governs like Marie Antoinette. And a sleeping, scammed America is finally waking up.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.