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.
KKR co-founder Henry Kravis speaks at Fortune Brainstorm Tech in Aspen, Colorado, on July 13th, 2015. (Photo: Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm Tech/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
The billionaire founders of KKR, America's first nationally celebrated "private equity" giant, have just announced they're stepping down as the company's co-CEOs. Henry Kravis, now 77, and George Roberts, 78, helped found KKR in 1976. They opened up shop with $120,000 in capital to invest. Their KKR portfolio currently holds assets valued not all that far from half a trillion.
Kravis and Roberts also both personally now rank among America's 100 richest, Roberts with a net worth of $9 billion and his cousin Kravis not far behind with $8.5 billion. In their retirement announcement Monday, they declared themselves supremely "proud of what we have built" and proclaimed that "KKR still has so much potential even 45 years later."
Global business commentators, predictably enough, have been gushing over Kravis and Roberts this week, extending to the pair all the plaudits the phenomenally rich consider their natural due. The Financial Times, for instance, has marveled that Kravis and Roberts began their illustrious career with one "dazzling insight" and ended it with another. No one has ever, the business journal added, "understood the concept of 'other people's money' better."
In one niche of American economic life after another, private equity kingpins like Kravis and Roberts have been hollowing out the hopes of average working people and the communities they call home.
Kravis and Roberts, meanwhile, have of late been trying to show that the "other people" they care about include those not quite as fortunate as they happen to be. Last year, the cousins created a special $50-million KKR fund to support front-line workers struggling their way through the pandemic. And to help support the fund, the pair pledged a chunk of their own 2020 compensation, a gesture totally appropriate, they explained, in the face of a pandemic that's "wreaking havoc on every country, every industry, every household, and virtually every single person."
Kravis and Roberts, to be sure, certainly do know havoc. The private equity industry they pioneered has been wreaking massive amounts of it for over four decades now. In one niche of American economic life after another, private equity kingpins like Kravis and Roberts have been hollowing out the hopes of average working people and the communities they call home.
About 12 million Americans, some 7 percent of the nation's workforce, are now laboring for firms that sit in private equity portfolios. That employment total would be considerably higher, analysts have calculated, had private equity not burst on America's financial scene. In retail alone, one 2019 study reported, private equity takeovers have cost over 1.3 million U.S. workers their jobs.
Among private equity's many retail victims: some 33,000 Toys 'R' Us workers who lost their jobs when their retail colossus went bankrupt and liquidated in 2018, just over a dozen years after KKR and two other private-equity firms had bought up all of the company's outstanding shares. That leveraged buyout saddled Toys 'R' Us with the massive debt that KKR and its partners had incurred to make the purchase. The burden of that debt, some $400 million a year, fell squarely on workers. They lost jobs, pay, and benefits to private equity's machinations -- as have workers across America's retail landscape. Of the 14 largest retail bankruptcies since 2012, ten have come at retailers that private equity firms swallowed up.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal identified the nation's 38 surviving retailers with the weakest credit profiles. Private equity firms owned 27 of them. Between the massive debt private equity has foisted on retailers and the billions in fees and dividends that private equity has extracted from them, notes Jim Baker of the watchdog Private Equity Stakeholder Project, private equity "has made it more difficult" for retailers "to innovate in a changing industry."
One typical storyline: KKR became retailer Academy Sports' largest shareholder in 2011, then paid itself $900 million in dividends from Academy Sports Health over the next four years. A year ago, in April, Academy Sports furloughed a "substantial number" of its employees. Last month, KKR announced plans to sell its entire $853-million stake in the company.
Similar stories abound elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Private equity firms now own 11 percent of the nation's nursing homes, and this ownership, says 2020 research from three prestigious U.S. business schools, "has coincided with cost cutting, declining quality of care, and increasing violations discovered in government inspections."
This past February, another study -- out of the National Bureau of Economic Research -- found that private equity nursing home ownership "increases the short-term mortality" of Medicare patients by 10 percent, a dynamic that over the 12 years studied led to over 20,000 premature deaths.
The latest unsavory addition to private equity portfolios: the fossil fuel industry.
Private equity firms, observes the American Prospect's David Dayen, seem to have a particular affection for collecting some of the nation's "worst businesses," outfits that range from for-profit colleges and payday lenders to bail companies and detention camps for children.
The latest unsavory addition to private equity portfolios: the fossil fuel industry. Private equity funds, the New York Times reports this week, are "buying up offshore platforms, building new pipelines, and extending lifelines to coal power plants."
KKR has become a major player in this space, notes a just-released Private Equity Stakeholder Project study, and "recently redoubled on fracking." Private equity firms like KKR have been picking up fossil-fuel assets on the cheap, exploiting the eagerness of publicly traded oil companies eager to ditch their dirtier holdings in the face of growing public pressure. Sales to private equity firms let Big Oil look more environmentally conscious, but the environment -- and the 17.6 million Americans who live within a mile of an active oil or gas well -- get no relief.
Through all this wheeling and dealing, of course, private equity dealmakers just continue getting richer. That aggrandizement comes with the territory, with the "business model" that Henry Kravis and George Roberts have done so much to perfect. Characters like Kravis and Roberts -- they mostly call themselves "general partners" -- have over $7 trillion in assets under management, mostly raised, notes policy analyst Matt Stoller, from wealthy people and institutional investors like pension funds. They pay themselves by the rule of "2 and 20," charging the enterprises they've bought up a 2 percent annual management fee on their assets under management and a 20 percent performance fee on profits above some benchmark level.
This 20 percent fee, in turn, gets treated as a "capital gain" for tax purposes, and this "carried interest" may now be the U.S. tax code's most notorious loophole, just one of the many ways government policies and inadequate oversight have fueled private equity's rise.
"For far too long," as Senator Elizabeth Warren declared two years ago as she introduced reform legislation, "Washington has looked the other way while private equity firms take over companies, load them with debt, strip them of their wealth, and walk away scot-free -- leaving workers, consumers, and whole communities to pick up the pieces."
Warren's proposed Stop Wall Street Looting Act, if enacted, would stop "private equity firms from stripping cash, real estate and other assets from the companies they take over," one appraisal notes, and, most importantly, "hold private equity firms responsible for the large debts that they use to buy companies."
But even the provisions of Warren's legislation, the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Eileen Appelbaum has told Congress, won't be enough to fully prevent private equity's pillaging of Main Street. She's called for other legislation to halt "particular financial abuses" like the organizing of so-called "wolf packs" to secretly accumulate shares in publicly traded companies.
But even these additional moves might not be enough to tame the animal spirits the Kravis-and-Roberts crew has been visiting upon us. Private equity, argues analyst Matt Stoller, amounts to "a highly ideological social movement that comes out of the modest conglomerate craze of the 1960s" and the junk bond mania that followed soon after. The essential lesson private equity's pioneers gained from these episodes: Go for it. Get everything you can grab.
Americans have received, in effect, a half-century-long lesson in what happens when you let the rich get ever richer.
This new attitude began emerging, not so coincidentally, when the federal income tax rate on America's highest incomes began sliding in 1964. The year before, the nation's richest faced a 91 percent tax on income over $400,000. By the middle of the Reagan years that top rate had dropped down to 28 percent, only rising marginally in all the years since.
In this new, low-tax environment, America's rich could keep the lion's share of whatever income streams they could get their hands on. They now had a powerful personal incentive, in other words, to seek out new sources of income and exploit them to the fullest. And exploit they did, employing their new wealth politically to stack the deck in their favor. They soon won the massive deregulation of the rules put in place to stop the nation's original Robber Barons. They neutered the labor movement and white collar criminal enforcement. They birthed private equity.
Americans have received, in effect, a half-century-long lesson in what happens when you let the rich get ever richer. Our New Deal forbears had a better idea: discourage the accumulation of grand personal fortunes. In 1942, Franklin Roosevelt even proposed what amounted to a "maximum wage," a 100 percent tax on income over $25,000, about $400,000 in today's dollars. That 100-percent top rate didn't become law, but the nation's top tax rate would hit 94 percent in 1944 before leveling off at 91 percent for most of the next two decades.
Those decades would see the emergence of the first mass middle class society in world history. We've been going backwards from that middle-class society ever since, leaving Henry Kravis and George Roberts, in the process, with plenty to smile about.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The billionaire founders of KKR, America's first nationally celebrated "private equity" giant, have just announced they're stepping down as the company's co-CEOs. Henry Kravis, now 77, and George Roberts, 78, helped found KKR in 1976. They opened up shop with $120,000 in capital to invest. Their KKR portfolio currently holds assets valued not all that far from half a trillion.
Kravis and Roberts also both personally now rank among America's 100 richest, Roberts with a net worth of $9 billion and his cousin Kravis not far behind with $8.5 billion. In their retirement announcement Monday, they declared themselves supremely "proud of what we have built" and proclaimed that "KKR still has so much potential even 45 years later."
Global business commentators, predictably enough, have been gushing over Kravis and Roberts this week, extending to the pair all the plaudits the phenomenally rich consider their natural due. The Financial Times, for instance, has marveled that Kravis and Roberts began their illustrious career with one "dazzling insight" and ended it with another. No one has ever, the business journal added, "understood the concept of 'other people's money' better."
In one niche of American economic life after another, private equity kingpins like Kravis and Roberts have been hollowing out the hopes of average working people and the communities they call home.
Kravis and Roberts, meanwhile, have of late been trying to show that the "other people" they care about include those not quite as fortunate as they happen to be. Last year, the cousins created a special $50-million KKR fund to support front-line workers struggling their way through the pandemic. And to help support the fund, the pair pledged a chunk of their own 2020 compensation, a gesture totally appropriate, they explained, in the face of a pandemic that's "wreaking havoc on every country, every industry, every household, and virtually every single person."
Kravis and Roberts, to be sure, certainly do know havoc. The private equity industry they pioneered has been wreaking massive amounts of it for over four decades now. In one niche of American economic life after another, private equity kingpins like Kravis and Roberts have been hollowing out the hopes of average working people and the communities they call home.
About 12 million Americans, some 7 percent of the nation's workforce, are now laboring for firms that sit in private equity portfolios. That employment total would be considerably higher, analysts have calculated, had private equity not burst on America's financial scene. In retail alone, one 2019 study reported, private equity takeovers have cost over 1.3 million U.S. workers their jobs.
Among private equity's many retail victims: some 33,000 Toys 'R' Us workers who lost their jobs when their retail colossus went bankrupt and liquidated in 2018, just over a dozen years after KKR and two other private-equity firms had bought up all of the company's outstanding shares. That leveraged buyout saddled Toys 'R' Us with the massive debt that KKR and its partners had incurred to make the purchase. The burden of that debt, some $400 million a year, fell squarely on workers. They lost jobs, pay, and benefits to private equity's machinations -- as have workers across America's retail landscape. Of the 14 largest retail bankruptcies since 2012, ten have come at retailers that private equity firms swallowed up.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal identified the nation's 38 surviving retailers with the weakest credit profiles. Private equity firms owned 27 of them. Between the massive debt private equity has foisted on retailers and the billions in fees and dividends that private equity has extracted from them, notes Jim Baker of the watchdog Private Equity Stakeholder Project, private equity "has made it more difficult" for retailers "to innovate in a changing industry."
One typical storyline: KKR became retailer Academy Sports' largest shareholder in 2011, then paid itself $900 million in dividends from Academy Sports Health over the next four years. A year ago, in April, Academy Sports furloughed a "substantial number" of its employees. Last month, KKR announced plans to sell its entire $853-million stake in the company.
Similar stories abound elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Private equity firms now own 11 percent of the nation's nursing homes, and this ownership, says 2020 research from three prestigious U.S. business schools, "has coincided with cost cutting, declining quality of care, and increasing violations discovered in government inspections."
This past February, another study -- out of the National Bureau of Economic Research -- found that private equity nursing home ownership "increases the short-term mortality" of Medicare patients by 10 percent, a dynamic that over the 12 years studied led to over 20,000 premature deaths.
The latest unsavory addition to private equity portfolios: the fossil fuel industry.
Private equity firms, observes the American Prospect's David Dayen, seem to have a particular affection for collecting some of the nation's "worst businesses," outfits that range from for-profit colleges and payday lenders to bail companies and detention camps for children.
The latest unsavory addition to private equity portfolios: the fossil fuel industry. Private equity funds, the New York Times reports this week, are "buying up offshore platforms, building new pipelines, and extending lifelines to coal power plants."
KKR has become a major player in this space, notes a just-released Private Equity Stakeholder Project study, and "recently redoubled on fracking." Private equity firms like KKR have been picking up fossil-fuel assets on the cheap, exploiting the eagerness of publicly traded oil companies eager to ditch their dirtier holdings in the face of growing public pressure. Sales to private equity firms let Big Oil look more environmentally conscious, but the environment -- and the 17.6 million Americans who live within a mile of an active oil or gas well -- get no relief.
Through all this wheeling and dealing, of course, private equity dealmakers just continue getting richer. That aggrandizement comes with the territory, with the "business model" that Henry Kravis and George Roberts have done so much to perfect. Characters like Kravis and Roberts -- they mostly call themselves "general partners" -- have over $7 trillion in assets under management, mostly raised, notes policy analyst Matt Stoller, from wealthy people and institutional investors like pension funds. They pay themselves by the rule of "2 and 20," charging the enterprises they've bought up a 2 percent annual management fee on their assets under management and a 20 percent performance fee on profits above some benchmark level.
This 20 percent fee, in turn, gets treated as a "capital gain" for tax purposes, and this "carried interest" may now be the U.S. tax code's most notorious loophole, just one of the many ways government policies and inadequate oversight have fueled private equity's rise.
"For far too long," as Senator Elizabeth Warren declared two years ago as she introduced reform legislation, "Washington has looked the other way while private equity firms take over companies, load them with debt, strip them of their wealth, and walk away scot-free -- leaving workers, consumers, and whole communities to pick up the pieces."
Warren's proposed Stop Wall Street Looting Act, if enacted, would stop "private equity firms from stripping cash, real estate and other assets from the companies they take over," one appraisal notes, and, most importantly, "hold private equity firms responsible for the large debts that they use to buy companies."
But even the provisions of Warren's legislation, the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Eileen Appelbaum has told Congress, won't be enough to fully prevent private equity's pillaging of Main Street. She's called for other legislation to halt "particular financial abuses" like the organizing of so-called "wolf packs" to secretly accumulate shares in publicly traded companies.
But even these additional moves might not be enough to tame the animal spirits the Kravis-and-Roberts crew has been visiting upon us. Private equity, argues analyst Matt Stoller, amounts to "a highly ideological social movement that comes out of the modest conglomerate craze of the 1960s" and the junk bond mania that followed soon after. The essential lesson private equity's pioneers gained from these episodes: Go for it. Get everything you can grab.
Americans have received, in effect, a half-century-long lesson in what happens when you let the rich get ever richer.
This new attitude began emerging, not so coincidentally, when the federal income tax rate on America's highest incomes began sliding in 1964. The year before, the nation's richest faced a 91 percent tax on income over $400,000. By the middle of the Reagan years that top rate had dropped down to 28 percent, only rising marginally in all the years since.
In this new, low-tax environment, America's rich could keep the lion's share of whatever income streams they could get their hands on. They now had a powerful personal incentive, in other words, to seek out new sources of income and exploit them to the fullest. And exploit they did, employing their new wealth politically to stack the deck in their favor. They soon won the massive deregulation of the rules put in place to stop the nation's original Robber Barons. They neutered the labor movement and white collar criminal enforcement. They birthed private equity.
Americans have received, in effect, a half-century-long lesson in what happens when you let the rich get ever richer. Our New Deal forbears had a better idea: discourage the accumulation of grand personal fortunes. In 1942, Franklin Roosevelt even proposed what amounted to a "maximum wage," a 100 percent tax on income over $25,000, about $400,000 in today's dollars. That 100-percent top rate didn't become law, but the nation's top tax rate would hit 94 percent in 1944 before leveling off at 91 percent for most of the next two decades.
Those decades would see the emergence of the first mass middle class society in world history. We've been going backwards from that middle-class society ever since, leaving Henry Kravis and George Roberts, in the process, with plenty to smile about.
The billionaire founders of KKR, America's first nationally celebrated "private equity" giant, have just announced they're stepping down as the company's co-CEOs. Henry Kravis, now 77, and George Roberts, 78, helped found KKR in 1976. They opened up shop with $120,000 in capital to invest. Their KKR portfolio currently holds assets valued not all that far from half a trillion.
Kravis and Roberts also both personally now rank among America's 100 richest, Roberts with a net worth of $9 billion and his cousin Kravis not far behind with $8.5 billion. In their retirement announcement Monday, they declared themselves supremely "proud of what we have built" and proclaimed that "KKR still has so much potential even 45 years later."
Global business commentators, predictably enough, have been gushing over Kravis and Roberts this week, extending to the pair all the plaudits the phenomenally rich consider their natural due. The Financial Times, for instance, has marveled that Kravis and Roberts began their illustrious career with one "dazzling insight" and ended it with another. No one has ever, the business journal added, "understood the concept of 'other people's money' better."
In one niche of American economic life after another, private equity kingpins like Kravis and Roberts have been hollowing out the hopes of average working people and the communities they call home.
Kravis and Roberts, meanwhile, have of late been trying to show that the "other people" they care about include those not quite as fortunate as they happen to be. Last year, the cousins created a special $50-million KKR fund to support front-line workers struggling their way through the pandemic. And to help support the fund, the pair pledged a chunk of their own 2020 compensation, a gesture totally appropriate, they explained, in the face of a pandemic that's "wreaking havoc on every country, every industry, every household, and virtually every single person."
Kravis and Roberts, to be sure, certainly do know havoc. The private equity industry they pioneered has been wreaking massive amounts of it for over four decades now. In one niche of American economic life after another, private equity kingpins like Kravis and Roberts have been hollowing out the hopes of average working people and the communities they call home.
About 12 million Americans, some 7 percent of the nation's workforce, are now laboring for firms that sit in private equity portfolios. That employment total would be considerably higher, analysts have calculated, had private equity not burst on America's financial scene. In retail alone, one 2019 study reported, private equity takeovers have cost over 1.3 million U.S. workers their jobs.
Among private equity's many retail victims: some 33,000 Toys 'R' Us workers who lost their jobs when their retail colossus went bankrupt and liquidated in 2018, just over a dozen years after KKR and two other private-equity firms had bought up all of the company's outstanding shares. That leveraged buyout saddled Toys 'R' Us with the massive debt that KKR and its partners had incurred to make the purchase. The burden of that debt, some $400 million a year, fell squarely on workers. They lost jobs, pay, and benefits to private equity's machinations -- as have workers across America's retail landscape. Of the 14 largest retail bankruptcies since 2012, ten have come at retailers that private equity firms swallowed up.
Last year, the Wall Street Journal identified the nation's 38 surviving retailers with the weakest credit profiles. Private equity firms owned 27 of them. Between the massive debt private equity has foisted on retailers and the billions in fees and dividends that private equity has extracted from them, notes Jim Baker of the watchdog Private Equity Stakeholder Project, private equity "has made it more difficult" for retailers "to innovate in a changing industry."
One typical storyline: KKR became retailer Academy Sports' largest shareholder in 2011, then paid itself $900 million in dividends from Academy Sports Health over the next four years. A year ago, in April, Academy Sports furloughed a "substantial number" of its employees. Last month, KKR announced plans to sell its entire $853-million stake in the company.
Similar stories abound elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Private equity firms now own 11 percent of the nation's nursing homes, and this ownership, says 2020 research from three prestigious U.S. business schools, "has coincided with cost cutting, declining quality of care, and increasing violations discovered in government inspections."
This past February, another study -- out of the National Bureau of Economic Research -- found that private equity nursing home ownership "increases the short-term mortality" of Medicare patients by 10 percent, a dynamic that over the 12 years studied led to over 20,000 premature deaths.
The latest unsavory addition to private equity portfolios: the fossil fuel industry.
Private equity firms, observes the American Prospect's David Dayen, seem to have a particular affection for collecting some of the nation's "worst businesses," outfits that range from for-profit colleges and payday lenders to bail companies and detention camps for children.
The latest unsavory addition to private equity portfolios: the fossil fuel industry. Private equity funds, the New York Times reports this week, are "buying up offshore platforms, building new pipelines, and extending lifelines to coal power plants."
KKR has become a major player in this space, notes a just-released Private Equity Stakeholder Project study, and "recently redoubled on fracking." Private equity firms like KKR have been picking up fossil-fuel assets on the cheap, exploiting the eagerness of publicly traded oil companies eager to ditch their dirtier holdings in the face of growing public pressure. Sales to private equity firms let Big Oil look more environmentally conscious, but the environment -- and the 17.6 million Americans who live within a mile of an active oil or gas well -- get no relief.
Through all this wheeling and dealing, of course, private equity dealmakers just continue getting richer. That aggrandizement comes with the territory, with the "business model" that Henry Kravis and George Roberts have done so much to perfect. Characters like Kravis and Roberts -- they mostly call themselves "general partners" -- have over $7 trillion in assets under management, mostly raised, notes policy analyst Matt Stoller, from wealthy people and institutional investors like pension funds. They pay themselves by the rule of "2 and 20," charging the enterprises they've bought up a 2 percent annual management fee on their assets under management and a 20 percent performance fee on profits above some benchmark level.
This 20 percent fee, in turn, gets treated as a "capital gain" for tax purposes, and this "carried interest" may now be the U.S. tax code's most notorious loophole, just one of the many ways government policies and inadequate oversight have fueled private equity's rise.
"For far too long," as Senator Elizabeth Warren declared two years ago as she introduced reform legislation, "Washington has looked the other way while private equity firms take over companies, load them with debt, strip them of their wealth, and walk away scot-free -- leaving workers, consumers, and whole communities to pick up the pieces."
Warren's proposed Stop Wall Street Looting Act, if enacted, would stop "private equity firms from stripping cash, real estate and other assets from the companies they take over," one appraisal notes, and, most importantly, "hold private equity firms responsible for the large debts that they use to buy companies."
But even the provisions of Warren's legislation, the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Eileen Appelbaum has told Congress, won't be enough to fully prevent private equity's pillaging of Main Street. She's called for other legislation to halt "particular financial abuses" like the organizing of so-called "wolf packs" to secretly accumulate shares in publicly traded companies.
But even these additional moves might not be enough to tame the animal spirits the Kravis-and-Roberts crew has been visiting upon us. Private equity, argues analyst Matt Stoller, amounts to "a highly ideological social movement that comes out of the modest conglomerate craze of the 1960s" and the junk bond mania that followed soon after. The essential lesson private equity's pioneers gained from these episodes: Go for it. Get everything you can grab.
Americans have received, in effect, a half-century-long lesson in what happens when you let the rich get ever richer.
This new attitude began emerging, not so coincidentally, when the federal income tax rate on America's highest incomes began sliding in 1964. The year before, the nation's richest faced a 91 percent tax on income over $400,000. By the middle of the Reagan years that top rate had dropped down to 28 percent, only rising marginally in all the years since.
In this new, low-tax environment, America's rich could keep the lion's share of whatever income streams they could get their hands on. They now had a powerful personal incentive, in other words, to seek out new sources of income and exploit them to the fullest. And exploit they did, employing their new wealth politically to stack the deck in their favor. They soon won the massive deregulation of the rules put in place to stop the nation's original Robber Barons. They neutered the labor movement and white collar criminal enforcement. They birthed private equity.
Americans have received, in effect, a half-century-long lesson in what happens when you let the rich get ever richer. Our New Deal forbears had a better idea: discourage the accumulation of grand personal fortunes. In 1942, Franklin Roosevelt even proposed what amounted to a "maximum wage," a 100 percent tax on income over $25,000, about $400,000 in today's dollars. That 100-percent top rate didn't become law, but the nation's top tax rate would hit 94 percent in 1944 before leveling off at 91 percent for most of the next two decades.
Those decades would see the emergence of the first mass middle class society in world history. We've been going backwards from that middle-class society ever since, leaving Henry Kravis and George Roberts, in the process, with plenty to smile about.
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said one jourtnalist. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
Using terminology that's all too familiar to the U.S. public—and treated by the for-profit health system as synonymous with those who are entitled to less care—the Israel Defense Forces on Tuesday released an "in-depth review" of widespread reports that Israel has killed hundreds of people in Gaza so far through its deliberate starvation policy.
The military claimed the analysis found that many Palestinians who have died of malnutrition so far had previous illnesses.
"Most 'malnutrition' deaths were due to severe preexisting conditions," said the IDF in a post on social media. "The expert review concluded that there are no signs of a widespread malnutrition phenomenon among the population in Gaza."
The fact that a number of people who have died had health conditions before Israel began bombarding Gaza in October 2023—decimating its healthcare system, among other civilian infrastructure—is hardly a surprise, said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News.
"Children dying first in a famine Israel caused by restricting food aid also had comorbidities and preexisting conditions," said Grim. "Of course they did. That is who dies first, as any child can tell you."
The IDF and its top military funder, the U.S. government, have persistently denied that Israel is intentionally starving Palestinian civilians with its near-total blockade on humanitarian aid.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review' abto determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
As the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) has warned that famine is now unfolding in Gaza, experts have called the starvation crisis that's killed at least 235 people "entirely man-made," and Amnesty International has gathered extensive testimony from healthcare workers and civilians describing how Israel is using starvation as a "weapon of war," the Trump administration has continued to claim that any malnutrition in Gaza is the result of Hamas "stealing aid."
Last month, even IDF officials were forced to admit previous claims that Hamas was stealing humanitarian aid deliveries could not be verified.
With that claim debunked, the "in-depth review" focused instead on dismissing the starvation victims themselves.
The IDF presented the case of 4-year-old Abdullah Hanu Muhammad Abu Zarqa, who had a genetic disease that caused "deficiencies, osteoporosis, and bone thinning."
It also posted on the social media platform X the medical records of a 2-year-old named Abed Allah Hany Muhamad Abu Zarka, which showed the toddler had hair loss and rickets—a bone disease caused by vitamin D deficiency. The document showed he had a "positive family history of similar cases" and was shared in the apparent hope that disclosing the information would tamp down outrage over Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid.
"I can't understand how anyone thinks 'We're only starving the SICK kids to death' is any kind of justification, even if it were true?!" said New York Times columnist Megan K. Stack.
The in-depth review, which Israel said verified "only a few cases" of starvation, came weeks after the Times appeared to bow to pressure from the Israeli government and media after it reported on Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old who was born with cerebral palsy and had also been suffering from starvation. Israel claimed the use of photos of the toddler in media coverage was misleading because outlets like the Times didn't disclose al-Mutawaq's previous medical condition, and the Times issued an editorial note pointing out his diagnosis soon after.
The editors' move provoked outcry from progressive observers, who called the addendum "ghoulish" and "depraved."
One noted that an institution that took pains to "clarify" that "some portion of Nazi death camp victims had preexisting conditions" would rightly be accused of denying the impact of the Holocaust.
"It took an 'in-depth IDF review,'" one critic asked Wednesday, "to determine that children with preexisting conditions will be the first victims of a man-made famine?"
"If implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the Associated Press said.
Israel has reportedly discussed pushing the Palestinian population of Gaza to another war zone in South Sudan.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Israeli leaders had been engaged in talks with the African nation and that an Israeli delegation would soon visit the country to look into the possibility of setting up "makeshift camps" for Palestinians to be herded into.
"It's unclear how far the talks have advanced, but if implemented, the plans would amount to transferring people from one war-ravaged land at risk of famine to another," the AP said.
Like Gaza, South Sudan is in the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis caused by an ongoing violence and instability. In June, Human Rights Watch reported that more than half of South Sudan's population, 7.7 million people, faced acute food insecurity. The nation is also home to one of the world's largest refugee crises, with more than 2 million people internally displaced.
On Wednesday, the South Sudanese foreign ministry said it "firmly refutes" the reports that it discussed the transfer of Palestinians with Israel, adding that they are "baseless and do not reflect the official position or policy."
However, six sources that spoke to the AP—including the founder of a U.S.-based lobbying firm and the leader of a South Sudanese civil society group, as well as four who maintained anonymity—said the government briefed them on the talks.
Sharren Haskel, Israel's deputy foreign minister, also arrived in South Sudan on Tuesday to hold a series of talks with the president and other government officials.
While the content of these talks is unclear for the moment, the Israeli government is quite open about its goal of seeking the permanent transfer of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to other countries.
In addition to South Sudan, it has been reported that Israeli officials have also approached Sudan, Somalia, and the breakaway state of Somaliland, all of which have suffered from chronic war, poverty, and instability.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with the Israeli TV station i24 that "the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there."
Though Netanyahu has described this as "voluntary migration," Israeli officials have in the past indicated that their goal is to make conditions in Gaza so intolerable that its people see no choice but to leave.
Finance minister and war cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich, who has openly discussed the objective of forcing 2 million Palestinians out to make way for Israeli settlers, said in May: "Within a few months, we will be able to declare that we have won. Gaza will be totally destroyed."
Speaking of its people, he said: "They will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope and nothing to look for in Gaza, and will be looking for relocation to begin a new life in other places."
Contrary to Netanyahu's assertion, international bodies, governments, and human rights groups have denounced the so-called "voluntary migration" plan as a policy of forcible transfer that is illegal under international law.
"To impose inhumane conditions of life to push Palestinians out of Gaza would amount to the war crime of unlawful transfer or deportation," said Amnesty International in May.
Israeli human rights organizations, led by the group Gisha, explained in June in a letter to Israel's Defense Minister, Israel Katz, that there is no such thing as "voluntary migration" under the circumstances that the Israeli war campaign has imposed.
"Genuine 'consent' under these conditions simply does not exist," the groups said. "Therefore, the decision in question constitutes explicit planning for mass transfer of civilians and ethnic cleansing, while violating international law, amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The plan to permanently remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip has received the backing of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has said he wants to turn the strip into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
The U.S. State Department currently advises travelers not to visit Sudan or Somaliland due to the risk of armed conflict, civil unrest, crime, terrorism, and kidnapping. However, the United States has reportedly been involved in talks pushing these countries to take in the Palestinians forced out by Israel.
After Israel announced its plans to fully "conquer" Gaza, U.N. official Miroslav Jenča said during an emergency Security Council session on Sunday that the occupation push is "yet another dangerous escalation of the conflict."
"If these plans are implemented," he said, "they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction—compounding the unbearable suffering of the population."
Under Kennedy's leadership, Defend Public Health charged, the federal government "is now leading the spread of misinformation."
A grassroots public health organization on Wednesday took a preemptive hatchet to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s upcoming "Make America Health Again" report, whose release was delayed this week.
Health advocacy organization Defend Public Health said that it felt comfortable trashing the yet-to-be-released Kennedy report given that his previous report released earlier this year "fundamentally mischaracterized or ignored key issues in U.S. public health."
Instead, the group decided to release its own plan called "Improving the Health of Americans Together," which includes measures to ensure food safety, to improve Americans' ability to find times to exercise, and to ensure access to vaccines. The report also promotes expanding access to healthcare while taking a shot at the massive budget package passed by Republicans last month that cut an estimated $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade.
"In 2023, 28% of Americans had to delay or forgo medical or dental care due to cost, a number that will increase thanks to the recent reconciliation bill," the organization said. "Health coverage should be expanded, not reduced, and the U.S. should move toward a system that covers all."
Defend Public Health's report also directly condemns Kennedy's leadership as head of the Health and Human Services Department (HHS), as it labels him "an entirely destructive force and a major source of misinformation" who "must be removed from office." Under Kennedy's leadership, Defend Public Health charged, the federal government "is now leading the spread of misinformation."
Elizabeth Jacobs, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona and a founding member of Defend Public Health, explained her organization's rationale for getting out in front of Kennedy's report.
"Public health can't wait, so we felt it was important not to let RFK Jr. set an agenda based on distortions and distractions," she said. "Tens of thousands of scientists, healthcare providers, and public health practitioners would love to be part of a real agenda to improve the health of Americans, but RFK Jr. keeps showing he has no clue how to do it."
She then added that "you can't build a public health agenda on pseudoscience while ignoring fundamental problems like poverty and other social determinants of health" and said her organization has "put together strategies that could truly help children and adults stay healthier, and that's the conversation Americans need to be having, not Kennedy's fake 'MAHA.'"
Kennedy has been drawing the ire of public health experts since his confirmation as HHS secretary. The Washington Post reported this week that Kennedy angered employees of the Centers for Disease Control after he continued to criticize their response to the novel coronavirus pandemic even after a gunman opened fire on the agency's headquarters late last week.
Kennedy also got into a spat recently with international health experts. According to Reuters, Kennedy recently demanded the retraction of a Danish study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal that found no link between children's exposure to aluminum in vaccines and incidence of neurodevelopment disorders such as autism.