

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.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gave the following remarks Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Inflation Reduction Act, calling on his colleagues to study the bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how to improve it in order to meet the needs of the American people.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched here.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gave the following remarks Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Inflation Reduction Act, calling on his colleagues to study the bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how to improve it in order to meet the needs of the American people.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched here.
M. President: My understanding is that the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act" may be coming to the floor in the coming days.
There are some people who think this bill is worth supporting. There are others who think that it is not. But, whatever your views on this bill may be, let's be clear: As currently written, this is an extremely modest bill that does virtually nothing to address the enormous crises facing the working families of our country. It falls far short of what the American people want, what they need, and what they are begging us to do.
Given that this is the last reconciliation bill that we will be considering this year, it is the only opportunity that we have to do something significant for the American people that requires only 50 votes and that cannot be filibustered. This is an opportunity that must not be squandered.
M. President: Let's take a brief look at what is going on in this country today and see whether this reconciliation bill adequately addresses the needs of the American people.
Half of our people live paycheck to paycheck and because of inflation are falling even further behind in their desperation. Does this reconciliation bill raise the minimum wage? No.
Does it provide workers the protections they need in order to form unions? No.
M. President: At a time when the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major nation on earth, does this bill extend the $300 a month per child tax credit that existed last year? No, it doesn't.
If you are a parent today paying $15,000 a year for childcare, the average cost in America, does this bill reform our dysfunctional childcare system, make it affordable, and pay childcare workers decent wages? No, it doesn't.
At a time when over 70 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured, when we pay twice as much for health care as the people of almost any other major nation, when some 60,000 people a year die because they cannot afford to go to a doctor when they need to, does this bill do anything to create a rational, cost-effective health care system which guarantees health care for all - something that exists in almost every other major nation? No, it doesn't.
At a time when 45 million Americans are struggling to pay student debt and when hundreds of thousands of bright young people every year are unable to afford a higher education, does this bill do anything to help them? No, it doesn't.
M. President: 55% of senior citizens are trying to survive on an income of $25,000 a year or less. Many of them cannot afford to go to a dentist or buy the hearing aids or eyeglasses that they need, does this bill do anything to expand Medicare to cover their basic healthcare needs? No, it doesn't.
And when we talk about our seniors and disabled Americans, does this bill do anything to help the millions of them who would prefer to stay in their homes rather than be forced into nursing homes? No, it doesn't.
Everybody agrees that we have a major housing crisis in this country. Some 600,000 people are homeless sleeping out on streets across the country. In addition, nearly 18 million households are spending an incredible 50 percent of their incomes for housing. Does this bill do anything to address the major housing crisis that we face? No, it doesn't.
M. President: We don't talk about it much here in the Senate or in the corporate media, but at this moment in American history, we have more wealth and income inequality than at any time in the last 100 years with 3 people owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society, with the top 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 92%, with 45% of all new income going to the top one percent, and with CEOs of large corporations making 350 times more than their average workers.
M. President: Today, we have more concentration of ownership than at any time in the modern history of this country. In sector after sector, we have a handful of giant corporations often engaging in price-fixing who control what is produced and how much we pay for it. In fact, unbelievably, 3 Wall Street firms control assets of over $20 trillion and are the major stockholders in 96% of S&P 500 companies. Does this bill do anything to attack this enormous concentration of ownership and maker the economy more competitive? No, it doesn't.
Now, M. President, let me say a few words about what is in this legislation, a bill which has some good features, but also some very bad features.
Prescription Drugs
The good news, M. President, is that the reconciliation bill finally begins to address the outrageous price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs under Medicare.
Under this legislation, Medicare, for the first time in history, would be able to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices.
M. President: The bad news is that we will not see the impact of these negotiated prices until 2026 - four years from now.
The bad news is that, for whatever reason, in 2026, only 10 drugs would be negotiated with more to come in later years.
Moreover, with the possible exception of insulin, this bill does nothing to lower prescription drug prices for anyone who is not on Medicare.
Under this bill, at a time when the pharmaceutical companies are making outrageous profits, the pharmaceutical industry will still be allowed to charge the American people, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
M. President, if we are really serious about reducing the price of prescription drugs, we know exactly how we can do it.
For over 30 years, the VA has been negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the price of prescription drugs. Moreover, for decades, virtually every major country on Earth has done exactly the same thing for all of their people.
The result: Medicare pays twice as much for the exact same prescription drugs as the VA, and Americans, in some cases, may pay ten times as much for a particular drug as the people of any major country on Earth.
In other words, when it comes to reducing the price of prescription drugs under Medicare - we don't have to reinvent the wheel.
We could simply require Medicare to pay no more for prescription drugs than the VA.
And, M. President, if we did that, we could literally cut the price of prescription drugs under Medicare in half in a matter of months, not years. In February, I introduced legislation with Senator Klobuchar that would accomplish that goal.
Under that legislation, we could save Medicare $900 billion over the next decade. That is nine times more savings than the rather weak negotiation provision in this bill. And, by the way, that money could be used to add comprehensive dental, vision and hearing benefits to every senior in America. It could be used to lower the Medicare eligibility age to at least 60. And it could be used to extend the solvency of Medicare.
And that is why I will be introducing an amendment to make sure that Medicare pays no more for prescription drugs than the VA.
Affordable Care Act
Moreover, M. President, this legislation will extend subsidies for some 13 million Americans who have private health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act over the next three years. Without this provision, millions of Americans would see their premiums skyrocket and some 3 million Americans could lose their health insurance altogether. This is a good provision, but let's not fool ourselves. The $64 billion cost of this provision will go directly into the pockets of private health insurance companies that made over $60 billion in profits last year and paid their executives exorbitant compensation packages.
It would also do nothing to help the more than 70 million Americans who are uninsured or under-insured and it would do nothing to reform a dysfunctional healthcare system that is designed not to make people well, but to make the stockholders of private health insurance companies extremely rich.
Now, M. President, this legislation also provides $370 billion over the next decade to combat climate change and to invest in so-called energy security programs.
The good news is that if this legislation is signed into law it would provide far more funding for energy efficiency and sustainable energy than has ever been invested before.
Given the existential crisis that we face this is not enough, but it is a step forward.
It provides serious funding for wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, electric vehicles, energy efficient appliances and low-income communities that have born the brunt of climate change.
However, M. President, the bad news is that this legislation includes a huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry - both in the reconciliation bill itself and in a side deal that was just made public the other day.
Under this legislation, the fossil fuel industry will receive billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies over the next 10 years - on top of the $15 billion in tax breaks and corporate welfare that they already receive every year.
In my view, if we are going to make our planet healthy and habitable for future generations, we cannot provide billions of dollars in new tax breaks to fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet. On the contrary, we should end all of the massive corporate welfare that the fossil fuel industry already enjoys.
Under this legislation, up to 60 million acres of public waters must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before the federal government could approve any new offshore wind development. To put this in perspective, 60 million acres is the size of Michigan.
M. President let me read to you the headline that appeared in a July 29th article in Bloomberg: "Exxon Loves What Manchin Did for Big Oil in $370 Billion Deal."
According to Bloomberg, the CEO of Exxon Mobil called the reconciliation bill "a step in the right direction" and was "pleased" with the "comprehensive set of solutions" included in the reconciliation bill.
Barrons recently reported that Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum are just a few of the fossil fuel companies that could benefit the most under this bill.
Now, M. President, if the CEO of Exxon Mobil, a company that has done as much as any to destroy this planet, is "pleased" with this bill then I think all of us should have some very deep concerns about what is in this legislation.
Further, under this bill, up to 2 million acres of public lands must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before leases can move forward for any renewable energy development on public lands.
In total, this bill will offer the fossil fuel industry up to 700 million acres of public lands and waters to oil and gas drilling over the next decade - far more than the oil and gas industry could possibly use.
And, M. President, that's not all. The fossil fuel industry will not just benefit from the provisions in the reconciliation bill. A deal has also been reached to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to receive permits for their oil and gas projects.
This deal would approve the $6.6 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline - a fracked gas pipeline that would span 303 miles from West Virginia to Virginia, and potentially on to North Carolina.
This is a pipeline that would generate emissions equivalent to that released by 37 coal plants or by over 27 million cars each and every year.
M. President, let me quote from a July 29th letter from over 350 environmental organizations including the Sunrise Movement, Food and Water Watch, 350.ORG and the Climate Justice Alliance addressed to the President and the Senate Majority Leader expressing concerns about this bill:
"Any approval of new fossil fuel projects or fast-tracking of fossil fuel permitting is incompatible with climate leadership. Oil, gas and coal production are the core drivers of the climate and extinction crises. There can be no new fossil fuel leases, exports, or infrastructure if we have any hope of preventing ever-worsening climate crises, catastrophic floods, deadly wildfires, and more-all of which are ripping across the country as we speak. We are out of time. Therefore, we're calling on you to fulfill your promise to lead on climate, starting with denying approvals for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, rejecting all new federal fossil fuel leases onshore, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska, and everywhere else, and preventing any fast-tracked permits for fossil fuel projects."
M. President: I ask Unanimous Consent to insert this full letter into the record.
And here is what the Center for Biological Diversity had to say on this bill: "This is a climate suicide pact. It's self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction. The new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our country, and it's a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels."
In my view, we have got to do everything possible to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, not give billions of dollars in corporate welfare to an industry that has been destroying our planet.
And, I will be introducing an amendment to do just that.
Tax Reform
Finally, M. President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality; at a time of soaring corporate profits; and at a time in which we have a broken tax system riddled with all kinds of loopholes for the rich and the powerful, this bill makes a few modest changes to reform the tax code.
Under this bill, corporations will be required to pay a minimum tax of 15%. That is the good news. The American people are sick and tired of companies like AT&T, Federal Express and Nike making billions of dollars in profits and paying nothing in federal income tax. This provision has been estimated to raise $313 billion over the next decade.
Further, under this bill, the IRS will finally begin to receive the funding that it needs to audit wealthy tax cheats. Each and every year, the top 1 percent are able to avoid paying more than $160 billion in taxes that they legally owe because the IRS does not have the resources they need to conduct audits of the extremely wealthy. This bill begins to change that.
This bill would also make very modest changes to the so-called carried interest loophole that has allowed billionaire hedge fund managers on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse, teacher or firefighter.
But the bad news is that this bill does nothing to repeal the Trump tax breaks that went to the very wealthy and large corporations. Trump's 2017 tax bill provided over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top one percent and large corporations. In fact, 83% of the benefits of the Trump tax law are going to the top 1% - and this bill repeals none of those benefits.
And M. President, let's not forget. It is very likely that Congress will be doing a so-called tax extenders bill at the end of the year that could provide corporations up to $400 billion over the next decade in new tax breaks. If that occurs that would more than offset the $313 billion in corporate revenue included in this bill.
So that, M. President is where we are today. We have legislation which unlike the original Build Back Better plan ignores the needs of working families in childcare, Pre-K, the expansion of Medicare, affordable housing, home healthcare, higher education, and many other desperate needs.
This is legislation which, at a time of massive profits for the pharmaceutical industry, and when we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, takes some very modest steps to lower or control the price of medicine.
This is legislation which has some good and important provisions pertaining to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, but, at the same time, provides massive giveaways to the fossil fuel industry whose emissions are destroying the planet.
This is legislation which appropriately ends the absurdity of large, profitable corporations paying nothing in federal income tax but, at the same time, leaves intact virtually all of Trump's tax breaks for the wealthy and very large corporations.
M. President this more than 700-page bill after months of secret negotiations became public late last week. Now is the time for every member of the Senate to study this bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how we can improve it.
I look forward to being part of that process.
"Colorado sent a clear message tonight: No child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach," said the state Democratic Party.
Colorado voters on Tuesday handily approved a pair of ballot measures to fully fund free meals for all K-12 public school students, give raises or stipends to scholastic cafeteria workers, and enact grants for schools to buy fresh foods from local farmers.
According to unofficial results published Wednesday morning by the Colorado Secretary of State's office, Proposition LL overwhelmingly passed 64.66% to 35.34%. The proposal allows the state to keep and spend $12.4 million in tax revenue, including interest, already collected under Proposition FF to fund the Healthy School Meals for All Program, a 2022 voter-approved initiative to provide free breakfast and lunch to students and provide food purchasing grants to public schools.
Proposition MM—which raises taxes on households with annual incomes over $300,000 to fund the meals program—was approved 58.07% to 41.93%. The measure is meant to fill funding gaps in Proposition FF and was spurred by US President Donald Trump's signing of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which inflicted the largest-ever cuts in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), largely to pay for tax cuts for the ultrarich and corporations.
“We're relieved that Colorado kids will continue to have access to free meals at school,” Anya Rose, director pf public policy at the advocacy group Hunger Free Colorado, told Colorado Public Radio (CPR) after the measures' passage. “I think that hunger is top of mind for a lot of people right now, and it's really visible for people. And we know that this is an incredibly popular program that is more important, now than ever, since there are so many people struggling to make ends meet and resources have fallen through for a lot.”
Colorado sent a clear message tonight: no child should ever have to learn on an empty stomach.While Republicans in Washington play politics with our families, our food and our health care, Colorado is stepping up, keeping Healthy School Meals for All alive for 600,000 kids.
[image or embed]
— Colorado Democrats 🇺🇸 (@coloradodems.org) November 4, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Joe Kabourek, who managed the Keep Kids Fed campaign, said in a statement: "Thank you to every voter, volunteer, community partner, and endorsing organization who turned out to pass Propositions LL and MM, ensuring every child in Colorado can continue to get a healthy meal at school."
Nine US states have now enacted laws providing free meals to all public school students regardless of family income: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont. Cities including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC have enacted similar programs.
Betsy Hayes of Denver recalled the cruelty her children faced from other students for needing free school meals.
“It was very embarrassing for them and stigmatizing to them, and I really would like other kids not to have to go through that,” she told CPR.
"This victory belongs to the thousands of volunteers, many of them with our campaign, who left it all on the field to save absentee voting in Maine," said the US Senate candidate.
With 87% of the vote counted, around two-thirds of Mainers on Tuesday rejected a Republican-backed ballot measure that would have made it harder to vote absentee in a state where more than 370,000 people submitted such ballots last year—a win for democracy that came after US Senate candidate Graham Platner mobilized his supporters to campaign against the proposal.
The oyster farmer and harbormaster is one of multiple Democrats—including term-limited Gov. Janet Mills, who also opposed Question 1—running in the June primary to face longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins next November.
In the lead-up to this year's election, Platner released an animated advertisement and held a major rally in Portland against Question 1, which would have eliminated two days of absentee voting, prohibited requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, ended ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, banned prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limited the number of drop boxes, and required voters to show certain photo identification.
"This victory belongs to the thousands of volunteers, many of them with our campaign, who left it all on the field to save absentee voting in Maine," Platner said on social media after the results were announced late Tuesday, confirming that they worked 2,400 canvass shifts and contacted 49,000 voters.
League of Women Voters of Maine called the outcome "a win for voting rights and for Maine voters."
"Question 1 was a voter suppression bill that would have erected unnecessary barriers to voting," said Jen Lancaster, the group's communications director. "A large number of Maine voters depend on absentee voting to cast their ballot. It's important to protect this vital service and not dismantle it piece by piece."
Mills also welcomed its defeat, saying that "once again, Maine people have affirmed their faith in our free, fair, and secure elections, in this case by rejecting a direct attempt to restrict voting rights. Maine has long had one of the highest rates of voter turnout in the nation, in good part due to safe absentee voting—and Maine people tonight have said they want to keep it that way."
The governor also opposed Question 2, the "red flag" gun law approved by about two-thirds of Mainers on Tuesday. Mills said after the election that "I sincerely hope that this measure will strengthen public safety as proponents have argued. My administration will work with law enforcement and the public to implement this new law, along with our existing extreme risk protection law, to best ensure the safety of Maine people."
Platner, a US military veteran who has taught firearms courses, publicly supported Question 2 but did not campaign for or against it. The ballot measure passed after a 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston left 18 people dead, not including the shooter, whose family, friends, and Army Reserve unit all reported concerns about his mental health and access to firearms before the massacre.
"Maine voters have taken the safety of our communities into our own hands by passing commonsense, responsible gun legislation that will save lives and help keep our kids and families safe, not just from the horrors of a tragedy like Lewiston, but from the devastating impacts of everyday gun violence," Nacole Palmer of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition said in a statement after the vote. "Despite years of opposition from the gun lobby and the politicians they back, we've shown that our movement for commonsense, responsible gun ownership is stronger."
The New York City mayor-elect's victory, said one campaigner, "shows a path for liberals that it doesn’t have to be about 'strong men' leaders—it's issue-led authenticity that can cut through and fight back."
Since young men across the US shifted right in the 2024 elections, with former Vice President Kamala Harris losing to President Donald Trump among men ages 18-29, the Democratic Party has searched for ways to win back the voting bloc—and on Tuesday night, progressives urged leaders to simply look to New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's resounding success.
Exit polls showed Mamdani, a progressive state Assembly member who remained laser-focused on making the city more affordable for working people during his campaign, winning the support of 68% of male voters ages 18-29, while Cuomo won just 26% of them—a margin of 42 points.
The democratic socialist's support among men under the age of 45 was also notable, with a margin of 39 points.
Young male voters swung left in other closely watched races as well, with Virginia Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger winning the group by 15 points and New Jersey Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill winning by 12 points—but observers said Democratic leaders should pay special attention to the "blowout" in New York City as they seek answers about how to win over young men nationwide.
Housing campaigner Matthew Torbitt suggested that Mamdani appealed to young male New Yorkers by speaking clearly and emphatically about the need to make life for all working people more affordable—by establishing a network of city-run grocery stores to compete with private corporations, freezing the rent on rent-stabilized units, and expanding across the city's bus system the pilot program he championed that made one bus line fare-free.
"Young men just need to feel like there is someone on their side," Torbitt said.
Mamdani's victory came less than a month after the centrist think tank Third Way published its own analysis of Democrats' troubled relationship with young male voters.
The group posited that young men have felt "alienated" by the Democrats—partially due to economic issues, with the study acknowledging briefly that young male voters are frustrated that "economic expectations are stacked against them as young men," but also because "Democrats are out of the mainstream on social and cultural issues."
Without naming specific cultural battles that have been named by some strategists and pundits as issues Democrats should move rightward on—like abortion or transgender rights—Third Way spoke to men who said Democrats in recent years had "too much focus on cultural inclusivity" and were not tough enough on immigration.
The analysis also emphasized "masculinity," and one focus group member said the Republican Party had prioritized the undefined quality by embracing "capitalism."
The study echoed calls by US Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who paid homage to former Republican President Ronald Reagan in the Democratic Party's official response to Trump's State of the Union address earlier this year and went on to call on the party to exhibit "alpha energy."
Slotkin acknowledged Spanberger's and Sherrill's successful campaigns on Tuesday night, but made no mention of Mamdani's historic and nationally watched victory.
Journalist and reproductive rights advocate Jessica Valenti emphasized Mamdani's victory among young men in a video she posted to Instagram Tuesday night.
"Young men, who've been skewing more conservative, young men, who mainstream Democratic pundits said we could only win by messaging to the middle, by messaging to the right, by throwing trans rights under the bus, by throwing abortion rights under the bus," she said. "I really hope those people are paying attention tonight."
A year after Trump's victory, said Torbitt, Mamdani's support among young male voters "shows a path for liberals that it doesn’t have to be about 'strong men' leaders—it's issue-led authenticity that can cut through and fight back."