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
Economy
'Are Your Grocery Bills Lower?' Ad Targets Soaring Price of Eggs Under Trump
"While he is acting aggressively to lower taxes for the wealthy, we haven't seen that zeal to help the working class," said one union leader.
Feb 14, 2025
As Republicans in Washington, D.C., work to give the wealthy more tax cuts by targeting programs that help millions of American families, critics on Friday called out U.S. President Donald for his "broken promises to working people."
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and MomsRising announced in a Friday statement that they partnered up for an electronic advertisement in New York City's Times Square that is set to run 20 hours a day for two weeks.
AFT president Randi Weingarten said that even as Trump "campaigned on the promise to lower grocery prices," his actions since taking office show his true priorities.
"While he is acting aggressively to lower taxes for the wealthy," said Weingarten, "we haven't seen that zeal to help the working class."
"Has the president lowered food prices? No. Has he reduced inflation? Has he spurred job growth? No," she continued. "Instead, he reserves his real efforts for the billionaire class: cutting taxes on the rich, slashing federal funding for kids, and firing dedicated public servants, while ignoring the plight of working Americans who need his help the most."
"Americans deserve a leader who is listening to our concerns and working to make our lives better."
As The New York Timesnoted on the eve of Trump's January inauguration, he spotlighted the high costs of groceries during a campaign stop in Erie, Pennsylvania crowd last September and told the crowd that "we're going to get the prices down."
The new 10-second ad displayed at W. 43rd St. and Broadway asks, "Are your grocery bills lower?" and points out that a dozen eggs cost $6.55 the day Trump took office versus $7.55 today.
The Trump administration's antitrust enforcers face mounting calls to crack down on U.S. egg producers accused of taking advantage of the bird flu crisis to hike prices, boost profits, and consolidate market power.
"This billboard is not just an ad but a sign that the American people—moms, educators, healthcare workers, and more—are working together to ensure the president keeps his word on the real-life kitchen-table issues like the cost of eggs," said Weingarten. "No matter who you voted for, Americans deserve a leader who is listening to our concerns and working to make our lives better."
The ad's debut came after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives advanced their budget resolution—which would slash healthcare and food aid to fund $4.5 trillion in tax giveaways to rich people and corporations—out of committee Thursday night, as Trump and the chair of his Department of Government Efficiency, billionaire Elon Musk, fired thousands of federal workers.
"What's happening in our country is no laughing matter to America's moms, who want the lawmakers we elect to reduce the cost of eggs, food, childcare, housing, and other essentials—not create chaos and hardship by handing the reins of government to unaccountable billionaires who are looking out only for themselves," said MomsRising executive director Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner.
"This billboard is a reminder that Trump's fealty to the richest 1% can have a devastating impact on your safety, your family's future, and your wallets," she added. "The chaotic beginning of Trump's second term makes it easy to forget, but we have not forgotten his promise to address rising food costs for families across the nation. Moms, kids, and families deserve better."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, argued in a Friday opinion piece for MSNBC that "it may be unfair to hold a new administration accountable for broad-based price increases mere weeks after taking office. But Trump invited the criticism. Weeks before the election, he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the prices of eggs and gas are 'OUT OF CONTROL!!!' and he promised that on 'DAY ONE' he would 'SLASH prices–so fast it'll make their heads spin."
"He consistently claimed he had a plan to bring down prices; now it's clear that he's stiffing the people he promised like so many lawyers and contractors before them," Jacquez wrote. "Americans are already taking notice. In a poll this week by YouGov/CBS News, a whopping 66% of voters said Trump's focus on lowering prices was 'not enough.'"
"Far from being geared to bring prices down, Trump's early policy priorities are likely to add to inflation," he continued, warning about the impacts of Trump's tariff agenda, the House Budget Committee's Thursday resolution, and Musk's "war on government workers, including the inspectors and scientists who monitor chickens—as an avian flu outbreak wreaks havoc on our egg supply."
Jacquez stressed that "if Trump were serious about lowering prices, then he'd be working to ensure that the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes, not receive a massive giveaway. He'd be cracking down on monopolies and large corporations that use their market power to profit off consumers, not shutting down the agency that protects them."
"Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has pulled off another con job," he concluded. "Only this time, instead of the Atlantic City casinos left holding the bag, it's American families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Will Be Pain': How Trump Tax Giveaways to the Rich Hurt Small Businesses and Working People
"Congress has a choice—they can either extend a failed policy or create tax reform that actually works for Main Street and communities."
Feb 13, 2025
As the Trump administration and congressional Republicans pursue trillions of dollars in new tax giveaways for wealthy individuals and corporations, economists and pollsters this week are warning about how devastating the GOP's plan would be for small businesses and working families.
There Will Be Pain is the matter-of-fact title of a Thursday report from Josh Bivens, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). It details how extending the expiring provisions from the tax law that Republican lawmakers passed and Trump signed in 2017 "will have painful trade-offs for the U.S. economy and most Americans."
"The U.S. 'fiscal gap'—how much taxes need to be raised or spending cut to keep public debt stable as a share of gross domestic product—was entirely created by the Republican tax cuts of 2001, 2003, and 2017," Bivens wrote. "The 'tax gap'—the amount of taxes owed but not paid each year—is currently larger than the overall fiscal gap. It is driven by the richest U.S. households and businesses cheating the law and underpaying taxes."
Extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions, currently set to expire at the end of this year, "would increase the fiscal gap by nearly 50%, from 2.1% to 3.3%," Bivens explained. "No matter how these tax cuts are financed, the result will hurt most working families, especially low-income households."
"Cuts to key social insurance and income support programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly called food stamps) or Medicaid would do substantial damage to the nation's future workforce by depriving millions of children today of key health and developmental supports," he warned.
"Further, cuts of this size, if phased in quickly, would at minimum require the Federal Reserve to aggressively cut interest rates to avoid a recession," Bivens continued, "and could quite easily overwhelm any attempt by the Fed to buffer the economy from their effect, leading to recession and job losses."
The Republican playbook offers normal people crumbs and gives the cake to the rich. Extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts will give the bottom 60% $1.10 per day - but will give the top 1% $165 per day. Paying for this generosity to the top will cost working families dearly.
— Economic Policy Institute ( @epi.org) February 13, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Bivens argued that "expanding public investment and raising federal revenue via taxes that mostly come from high-income households is the most optimal way to close fiscal gap, boost economic productivity, and produce a fairer economy."
"If TCJA expansions for the rich are inevitable, this leaves three options: running deficits, increasing regressive taxes (in the form of tariffs, for example), or spending cuts," he added. "While none of these options is ideal, running deficits has the potential to be less harmful for American families, whereas regressive taxation and spending cuts will categorically cause the most harm."
The think tank published Bivens' report as a national coalition, Small Business for America's Future, released its findings from a survey of 863 small business owners' sentiments on the tax code, conducted from mid-December to late January.
The survey shows that just 3% of small business owners hired more workers as a result of the TCJA, 6% increased investments or employee wages, and 9% were able to pay down debts. Meanwhile, 43% reported no positive impact from the 2017 law.
The coalition found that small business owners are critical of the U.S. tax code in general and the TCJA specifically. Of those surveyed, 91% of said the tax code "favors large corporations over small businesses" and 76% report that wealthy individuals and big companies benefited most from the 2017 law, which critics have long called the "GOP Tax Scam."
The TCJA's small business pass-through deduction lets owners exclude up to 20% of their qualified business income from federal income tax. However, critics have called it complex and the survey shows that 39% of owners weren't sure if they claim the benefit.
The survey also highlights solutions that are popular with owners, such as exempting the first $25,000 of profit from federal income tax, creating a simplified standard deduction, making the tax code less complicated, and modernizing the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, 61% of respondents support raising the corporate tax rate to pay for new small business tax benefits.
"By slashing the corporate tax rate permanently from 35% to 21%, while offering most small business owners only a temporary and complex 20% tax deduction, the TCJA created a two-tier tax system that overwhelmingly favored large corporations," said Walt Rowen, co-chair of Small Business for America's Future and president of the Susquehanna Glass Company in Pennsylvania.
"This isn't just hurting business owners—it's failing workers, families and local economies in every community across the country," Rowen added. "Now, Congress has a choice—they can either extend a failed policy or create tax reform that actually works for Main Street and communities."
The GOP controls the White House and both chambers of Congress, but those surveyed by the coalition were divided in terms of political parties: 23% said they didn't know or preferred not to say while 29% identified as Republicans, 25% as Democrats, and 19% as Independents. More than three-quarters were age 55 or older, 56% were white, and just over half were men. A quarter of owners listed themselves as the only employee, and nearly half had just 1-10 workers.
"Small businesses create jobs, drive innovation, and provide essential services in every community across America. But this law has done nothing to help them fulfill their potential," said Anne Zimmerman, a coalition co-chair and certified public accountant in Ohio. "When nearly 40% of small business owners can't even determine if they received the law's main small business tax deduction, while large corporations got an immediate and permanent tax cut, something is fundamentally wrong with our approach."
The small business survey and EPI's report followed polling released Tuesday by Data for Progress, Groundwork Collaborative, and the Student Borrower Protection Center that shows a majority of Americans believe not only that the rich pay too little in taxes but also that lawmakers shouldn't slash popular programs to give them more tax cuts.
"Americans might not always see eye to eye, but one thing's clear: Nearly every voter—across party lines—wants to protect Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP," said Groundwork Collaborative. "Meanwhile, the GOP is pushing to gut them for even more tax breaks for the wealthy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Inspiring': Seattle Voters Say Yes to Corporate Tax Hike to Fund Social Housing
"This victory is just the latest sign that Americans are fed up with overpaid CEOs—and want to use tax policies to crack down on the problem," one advocate said.
Feb 12, 2025
Seattle housing advocates look to have defeated Amazon, Microsoft, and the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce this week with the likely passage of a ballot initiative to fund social housing through an "excess compensation" tax on city businesses paying salaries of over $1 million.
According to early returns for a special election Tuesday, 68.32% of voters backed funding for social housing and 57.55% chose to fund it specifically with the proposed tax. Advocates estimate that the 5% marginal tax on $1-million-plus salaries could raise around $53 million per year for affordable housing, funding 2,000 units in 10 years.
"This victory is just the latest sign that Americans are fed up with overpaid CEOs—and want to use tax policies to crack down on the problem," Sarah Anderson, Inequality.org co-editor and global economy project director at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams.
For Seattle housing advocates, the victory was a long time coming. While much of the country struggles with an affordable housing crisis, Seattle's housing costs are around 50% higher than the national average, playing a large role in making it the most expensive U.S. city outside of California, according to a 2024 analysis. Twenty-three percent of Seattle renters spend over half their income on housing, and Washington state has the third-highest homeless population in the U.S., trailing only California and New York. More than half of the state's homeless population—or over 16,000 people—spend their time in Seattle's King County.
There is also a very real sense in the city that Big Tech businesses in particular are directly to blame for the high costs, as rents in the Seattle metro area rose by 17% from 2011 to 2015, as Amazon and other tech giants developed the formerly industrial South Lake Union area into an office park. One local columnist even labeled the phenomenon the "Amazon effect."
House Our Neighbors, a group of housing activists that first came together in 2021 to defeat stricter sweeps of homeless encampments, has been working on a solution for years, according to In These Times. The solution they came up with was a model of social housing pioneered in places like Vienna and Singapore that is "removed from the profit motive, available to all, permanently affordable, and held as a public good in perpetuity."
"Last night's results left no doubt that Seattle voters want our city to act quickly to create permanently affordable social housing for people living on a range of incomes—and we believe that our wealthiest corporations should help pay for it."
First, they succeeded in passing a voter referendum in 2023 creating a new affordable housing agency, the Seattle Social Housing Developer.
To fund the agency, the coalition then gathered more than enough signatures to put the excess compensation tax, first dubbed Initiative 137, on the ballot for the high-turnout November 2024 presidential election. However, the Seattle City Council voted to delay the vote until a lower-turnout February special election. Then, following lobbying from the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and other business interests, the council introduced a competing measure that would fund the social housing agency using an existing JumpStart payroll expense tax that was already earmarked for existing affordable housing and Green New Deal programs.
"The City Council would rather take money from low-income programs than from millionaires and billionaires," House Our Neighbors policy and advocacy director Tiffani McCoy told local publicationThe Stranger at the time.
The competing measures were put on the ballot as Proposition 1A (for the excess compensation tax) and 1B (for the council alternative.) The latter option was promoted heavily by Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell. Since January 1, its campaign received more than twice as much money as the 1A campaign, with tech giants Amazon and Microsoft each contributing $100,000, as local outlet Real Changereported.
"The Proposition 1A campaign had huge odds placed in front of it," Washington State Rep. Shaun Scott (D-43), whose district includes parts of Seattle, told Common Dreams. "It was a… low-turnout February special election in which some of the wealthiest corporations in human history spent gobs of money to defeat it. Many of the political proxies of those corporations… also opposed 1A."
"And yet," he continued, "it won. It won because of working people. It won because it's good for working people."
While many ballots are still to be counted, 1A is currently leading 1B by a 15-point margin, according to The Urbanist.
"Despite a half-million dollars in corporate spending and the unscrupulous tactics of our City Council and mayor, last night Seattle voters delivered an unambiguous message: Now is the time for Seattle to take bold, innovative action to meet our housing and homelessness crises," McCoy said in a statement.
"Last night's results left no doubt that Seattle voters want our city to act quickly to create permanently affordable social housing for people living on a range of incomes—and we believe that our wealthiest corporations should help pay for it," McCoy continued. "This is now the second time that Seattle has told its elected leaders, loud and clear, that we want social housing!"
Shemona Moreno, the executive director of 350 Seattle—which helped with the get-out-the-vote effort—told Common Dreams: "Last night Seattle showed that not only do we want social housing but that we reject the austerity policies of this City Council, mayor, and their corporate backers. A huge thank you to the hundreds of volunteers that made this happen and to House Our Neighbors' leadership. Seattlites deserve safe, affordable places to call home. Social housing is good for our planet and for our communities."
The victory could make a big difference for housing in Seattle itself, though social housing advocates believe the fight is not over.
"Despite this clear mandate, we fully expect a legal challenge from the corporate interests who sought to defeat this measure," McCoy said. "Because let's be clear, their opposition was never about any of the issues they raised—it was about making sure the wealthiest among us don't pay a dollar more in taxes to solve the housing crisis. With two citywide council seats and a mayoral election coming up, we hope our city's elected leaders will listen to their constituents and embrace the work to come."
Beyond the city limits, however, state and national advocates also say it has the potential to inspire change across the country.
"I wouldn't be surprised if we see this spread to 'red' communities as well as officials see such taxes used effectively to raise revenue for social programs—revenue that will be even more needed in the face of federal cutbacks."
Scott has introduced a state bill to increase spending on low-income housing and support for the homeless by closing a corporate tax loophole that favors large banks.
"The city of Seattle has shown us the way," Scott said, adding that he wants Washington state to be able to support Seattle and other cities that may follow its model. The win for Proposition1A may increase support for his bill from other legislators.
"I think it's a clear signal to state lawmakers that this is something that we can win on that's popular," he said.
And the signal doesn't have to stop at the borders of Washington state.
"Seattle can play a very important role for leading the way for what it looks like to address housing unaffordability through progressive revenue," Scott said.
Further south, California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-24) recently introduced A.B. 11, The Social Housing Act.
"It's inspiring to see the grassroots support for social housing in Seattle," Lee told Common Dreams. "Voters see the value in embracing social housing as a public good, and Proposition 1A is a major step toward bringing this successful housing model to the city. As we've seen in Vienna and Singapore, social housing can actualize housing as a human right. That's why I will continue to push for social housing in California, so that housing can be attainable for everyone."
Anderson agreed the Seattle win could have national implications, especially when it comes to holding corporations who overpay executives to account. She noted that Seattle's excess compensation tax follows measures in San Francisco and Portland, Oregon to penalize companies with large gaps between CEO and worker pay.
And while these efforts may have begun on the progressive West Coast, there is a voting bloc for similar polices to succeed in other parts of the country.
"I wouldn't be surprised if we see this spread to 'red' communities as well as officials see such taxes used effectively to raise revenue for social programs—revenue that will be even more needed in the face of federal cutbacks," Anderson told Common Dreams. "And polling shows that taxing companies that overpay their executives is very popular—across the political spectrum. One 2024 survey, for instance, asked voters their views on a tax hike on corporations that pay their CEO at least 50 times more than they pay their median employee. Large majorities in every political group supported the idea (89% of Democrats, 77% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans)."
On the national level, there are three bills set to be reintroduced this session that seek to address excessive compensation: the Curtailing Executive Overcompensation (CEO) Act, the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, and the CEO Accountability and Responsibility Act.
"Once these policies start spreading at the state and local levels, they will give a boost to similar bills that have been introduced at the federal level," Anderson said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Fresh Tariffs Looming, Economist Warns They're Just a Way to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich
"The reality is that it's about tax cuts for the rich, paid for by import taxes on the American working and middle class," said Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan.
Feb 10, 2025
With 10% tariffs on all goods from China now in effect, economist Justin Wolfers wrote on X Sunday that U.S. President Donald Trump's "tariff-for-tax cut swap" is aimed at getting working Americans to foot the bill for his promised tax cuts.
The so-called "swap" is "very cleverly disguised populist policy that sounds like it's all about beating up on China to help American workers," wrote Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. "The reality is that it's about tax cuts for the rich, paid for by import taxes on the American working and middle class," he said.
The costs of tariffs, which are a form of tax applied on imports and can be used to support homegrown industries that employ American workers, are largely passed on to American consumers.
China has responded to Trump's tariffs by levying 15% tariffs on U.S. coal, liquefied natural gas, and other products. Tit-for-tat tariffs with China were a feature of the first Trump administration and many of the protectionist measures Trump imposed against China were continued under former President Joe Biden.
Trump has pushed for using revenue from higher tariffs to fund an extension of his tax cuts, according to Reuters.
"Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens. For this purpose, we are establishing the External Revenue Service to collect all tariffs, duties and revenues. It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our treasury coming from foreign sources," Trump said during his inaugural address.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated in spring 2024 that extending the expiring provisions of Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would cost $4.6 trillion over 10 years.
When Trump announced the 10% tariffs on China, he also signed executive orders mandating 25% tariffs on both Mexico and Canada, each of which were able to strike a deal that delayed the imposition of those tariffs.
Following the initial announcement of the suite of tariffs against China, Mexico, and Canada, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote that "instead of using tariffs to protect U.S. jobs, Trump is on an ego trip and is using tariffs to pursue petty fights with other nations while raising prices on Americans."
Meanwhile, more tariffs may be coming. Trump said while speaking with reporters on Sunday that he will impose a 25% tariff on aluminum and steel imports on Monday, according to multiple outlets.
"Any steel coming into the United States is going to have a 25% tariff," Trump said. "Aluminum too," he said, according to NBC News.
He also said that he plans to announce reciprocal tariffs on "every country" this week, per NBC News.
While Trump did not single out China when announcing his intention to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum, China—which is currently flooding non-U.S. markets with its steel and aluminum exports—is "at the heart" of these new promised tariffs from Trump, according to The New York Times.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular