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
billionaire
'A New Action Plan': Ban Musk Companies From Any and All Federal and State Contracts
"The U.S. is engaging in a suicidal strategy: funding the very person who is trying to destroy the government."
Mar 04, 2025
Democratic leaders have angered progressive organizers and voters alike in recent weeks as they have claimed they have "no leverage" to stop the most damaging actions of the Trump administration.
But a new national campaign to cut off President Donald Trump's ally and adviser, Elon Musk, from the taxpayer money that's helped make him the world's richest person could "breathe life into the Democratic Party at a time when it is flailing" while forcing Musk "to limit his slash-and-burn campaign against the federal government," according to Sunjeev Bery, the executive director of the advocacy group Freedom Forward.
The organization is circulating a petition to gather support for its proposal to block all federal funding and contracts for two of Musk's companies—electric car manufacturer Tesla and aeronautics company SpaceX.
As Bery wrote in a recent column at The Intercept, SpaceX has received nearly $20 billion in government contracts, while Musk has been able to charge more than a fair market price for his Tesla vehicles thanks to government incentives giving consumers thousands of dollars when they bought cars from his company.
"This was essentially free money for his company at a time when he desperately needed the cash to keep Tesla afloat," wrote Bery.
Musk's reliance on government funding hasn't stopped him from pushing to cut Social Security, the anti-poverty program that serves retired Americans, and sweeping through federal agencies including the Department of Education and Department of Labor with plans to slash spending that American families depend on.
"We need to end the dynamic where America is heavily funding a billionaire who is using his wealth to destroy the federal government."
Bery wrote at The Intercept that Democratic senators should first speak out publicly against government funding for the man who is working to dismantle the federal government—and then "begin turning their stated opposition into actual votes."
Although Republicans hold majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, he wrote, Democratic senators have a "powerful tool" help help cut Musk off from federal funding: the filibuster.
"Forty-one U.S. senators could use the filibuster to block most legislation that enables the funding of Musk's companies," wrote Bery. "With 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents in the Senate, such a push is numerically possible, though politically difficult."
Bery acknowledged challenges the Democrats would face, including party leaders' reluctance to "[pick] fights with billionaires" and the fact that filibustering the appropriations bills that help fund SpaceX and Tesla contracts would also delay the distribution of other government funds.
"Despite these difficulties, what makes pushing for a legislative attack on Musk's wealth such a powerful opportunity is that Musk himself is deeply unpopular among Democratic voters," wrote Bery, pointing to a recent Economist/YouGov poll that found 82% of Democrats disapprove of the billionaire and that a growing number of Republicans want Musk to have less influence over the Trump administration.
Bery told the Institute for Public Accuracy on Tuesday that the proposal to end government support for Musk's companies is "a new plan of action."
"This is an opportunity for senators to filibuster and block funding for Musk's companies," said Bery. "It is also an opportunity for state legislators to introduce legislation affirming that their states will not engage in contracts or buy equipment or services from Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla, and other ventures."
"We need to end the dynamic where America is heavily funding a billionaire who is using his wealth to destroy the federal government," said Bery. "The U.S. is engaging in a suicidal strategy: funding the very person who is trying to destroy the government. We have an opportunity to cut down that valuation dramatically. Musk stands to lose a lot. We can start holding these billionaire oligarchs accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Working People Need a Political Movement of Their Own
What are workers without a political home to do?
Feb 05, 2025
There is no question that the Democratic Party, once the party of the working class, is now the party of the professional managerial class.
Workers have been voting with their feet, while the Democrats have been marching in the other direction:
- Trump won 56 percent to 43 percent voters without college degrees, a proxy for the working class, according to exit polls.
- Trump won 52 percent to 46 percent those with total family income of $30,000 to $100,000, another proxy for the working class.
- Of those who felt that their family’s financial situation was worse today than four years ago, 82 percent voted for Trump. Of those who felt it was better, 83 percent voted for Harris, as the Democratic brand moved up the income ladder.
- Of those who said the economy is not so good or poor, 70 percent voted for Trump. Of those who thought the economy was excellent or good, a proxy for the managerial professional class, 92 percent voted for Harris.
- There is a very strong statistical correlation between the counties with the highest layoff rates and the decline of the Democratic vote. During the last four years approximately 80 million workers suffered through involuntary layoffs. (Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers.)
These trends have been a long time in the making. In 1976 Jimmy Carter received 52.3 percent of the white working-class vote. Biden received only 36.2 percent in 2020, and Harris 33.0 percent in 2024. Racism can’t be the major cause of recent declines, since Barack Obama did better with 40.6 percent in 2012.
Given the political chaos all around us, now is the time to experiment with new ways to rekindle a working-class movement.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are trying to attract workers to a class-befuddled MAGA movement dominated by millionaires and billionaires. Trump’s plutocratic cabinet makes clear that the working class does not have a political home in either party. The question is, how can a new one be constructed?
Turn the Democrats Into Progressive Populists?
It would be suicidal, some argue, for the working class to abandon the Democrats. Better that they exert pressure so that the Democrats become genuine economic populists. For that to happen, realistically, it must be proven that Democrats can win elections on a populist platform in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
But Sherrod Brown, a very strong economic populist, lost his Senate seat in Ohio in 2024. Did populism drag him down? Brown, who lost by 3.6 percent, certainly ran better than Harris, who lost Ohio by 11.2 percent. Brown believes, however, that he was done in by NAFTA, the free trade bill pushed for and signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. He believes the Democrats are still being blamed for how that trade bill decimated industrial areas:
“But what really mattered is: I still heard in the Mahoning Valley, in the Miami Valley, I still heard during the campaign about NAFTA.
I’ve seen that erosion of American jobs and I’ve seen the middle class shrink. People have to blame someone. And it’s been Democrats. We are more to blame for it because we have historically been the party of [workers].”
The power of NAFTA, not the working-class racism, is also what delivered the South to the Republicans, according to Nelson Lichtenstein in his new book on the Clinton years, A Fabulous Failure. Even after Nixon used his racist Southern Strategy to lure the South away from the Democrats, Lichtenstein notes that congressional representation in the southern states was still evenly split between the two parties. After NAFTA demolished the southern textile industry, however, most of the South abandoned the Democrats.
NAFTA = Job loss = Democrats
That’s the formula Brown could not overcome. But how could NAFTA still have so much punch three decades after it was passed?
For most working people, free trade deals are a proxy for mass layoffs. NAFTA, and then deals allowing China into the World Trade Organization, led to millions of lost jobs, especially in manufacturing areas. The pain lingers because corporations learned that moving jobs, or threatening to move them, can make them more in profits, and so involuntary layoffs continue unabated, upending the lives of approximately 20 million workers per year.
The Democratic Party has refused to stop Wall Street and corporate America from using layoffs to raise cash for the richest of the rich. The Democrats also have failed to redevelop decimated areas by directly creating jobs, as the New Deal did during the Depression. Job stability is not something either political party cares about, because corporate interests come first, but the issue hurts the Democrats more because of its historical claim as the party of working people.
The Democratic Party has refused to stop Wall Street and corporate America from using layoffs to raise cash for the richest of the rich.
Sherrod Brown’s populism didn’t cost him the election. The Democratic Party’s lack of economic populism, including their advocacy for trade deals and their overall failure to protect the livelihoods of working people, eroded Brown’s base.
Run as an Independent?
Dan Osborn, a steamfitter and former local union president, tried another path by running as an independent Senate candidate representing Nebraska. (The Democrats did not field a candidate.) He did even better than Sherrod Brown, losing by 6.7 percent while Harris finished a whopping 20.4 percent behind Trump, but clearly more needs to be done.
Osborn is now setting up the Working-Class Heroes Fund, a political action committee to recruit and support working-class candidates. As he put it:
Whether they’re leaving their party or it’s young people registering to vote, I think there’s certainly an appetite for people who are just frustrated with the parties…. We just see things not getting done. The reason why they’re not getting done is because they’re all bought and sold, and they’re owned by corporations. That is truly the divider in the country. So, I think that’s where the appetite stems from.
To win Osborn needed about 20 percent of Trump voters, which in turn meant he needed to find areas of agreement with Trump while struggling to find a working-class position on immigration. On the one hand, he said that something had to be done to secure the southern border. “Our border’s broken,” he said. “Our immigration system is broken.” He also argued that hard-working immigrants who were in the country, paid their taxes, and didn’t commit crimes should have a pathway to citizenship.
A Movement, Not Just a Candidate
Running candidates independent of the two parties, but without playing the role of a spoiler, is a strategy worth trying. But the history of working-class movements suggests that significant political change requires the mobilization of large numbers of working people into organized political movements of their own making.
- It was the rise of the 19th populists, the Farmers Alliance, that eventually forced the political system to regulate the robber barons.
- It was the rapid rise of the labor movement during the Depression that mobilized mass support for the New Deal.
- It was the upsurge of the Civil Rights movement that led to the historic anti-discriminatory reforms passed during the Johnson administration in the 1960s.
These movements reshaped the political landscape and put working-class issues on the national agenda. They gave working people a home, a collective expression, a sense of belonging, and empowerment. My guess is that for some, MAGA has done the same.
The Democrats became the party of the working-class because the labor movement, after WWII, represented more than 30 percent of the workforce. If you count family members it represented a large majority of working people. Its agenda could not be ignored.
Today, however, with only six percent of private sector workers in labor unions, that voice is greatly diminished.
Can labor unions again grow rapidly? Not without major labor law reforms to level the playing field with corporate power. But those reforms will not pass without a mobilized working class that demands it. Even when Democrats have controlled all three branches of government, they have failed to pass such reforms. If we’re waiting for labor unions to again represent 20 percent of the workforce, we’ve got a long wait.
The political void needs to be filled with concrete activities that bring workers together and give them a sense of collective power.
Working people, union and non-union alike, can still be mobilized through civic engagement to express their hopes and desires. Workers could join something new, like a new Workers Populist Alliance, to develop and put forth a working-class agenda.
But such a formation can only get off the ground if it is sponsored and resourced by a group of progressive labor unions. If unions really backed it, workers just might come. We need them to step up and try a pilot in one state, like Michigan.
What should a Workers Populist Alliance stand for? Here’s a simple platform that surveys suggest would have wide working-class appeal:
- Increase the minimum wage to at least $20 per hour, provide paid family leave, and four weeks paid vacation a year.
- Save jobs by prohibiting large corporations that receive taxpayer money and tax breaks from laying off taxpayers involuntarily.
- Guarantee the right to a job at a living wage. If the private sector can't create those jobs, the public sector must.
- Stop drug company price gouging, and end health insurance rip-offs by replacing them with Medicare for All.
The political void needs to be filled with concrete activities that bring workers together and give them a sense of collective power. One activity would be to shove this agenda in the face of every candidate, from city council to President, asking them to publicly endorse it. The platform could be used to fight against millions of unnecessary layoffs caused by unmitigated corporate greed and provide a progressive alternative to MAGA. This could be done very systematically in town after town, county after county. The ask of politicians is simple: Which side are you on?
Are labor unions willing to build a new political movement outside of the Democratic Party? It would be an uphill battle because their shared roots run deep. But expecting the Democrats to change their stripes has been a recipe for failure the last 40 years. And so is believing that MAGA billionaires will have anything to offer working people other than more tax cuts for the rich, plus mass layoffs.
Given the political chaos all around us, now is the time to experiment with new ways to rekindle a working-class movement. Could this develop into a viable third party of working people? No one knows. But there is no doubt that working people need a new home of their making.
The billionaire class has two political parties. Working people need one of our own.
Keep ReadingShow Less
If Bloomberg Wants to Buy an Election, He Should Run as a Republican Against Trump--Not Sabotage Democrats
The mega-billionaire should be running against Trump in the Republican primaries, not as a Democrat. If he actually cared about this country more than stroking his massive ego that is exactly what he would be doing.
Feb 10, 2020
Presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is one of the 10 richest persons in the world, with a net worth approaching $60 billion, depending upon the vagaries of the stock and bond markets on any given day.
For anyone who is not a billionaire, it is almost impossible to grasp just how much money this is for a single human being. It would be like calculating the distance of our planet to a distant galaxy in centimeters. Bloomberg could spend $100 million every single day on his presidential campaign between now and election day in November--basically more than any candidate except Bloomberg and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer have spent so far in the entire 2019-20 election cycle--and he would still have a net worth greater than $30 billion. He would remain one of the 30 richest people in the world.
Think about that. Money basically means nothing to Bloomberg. It makes no material difference to his life--anymore than losing a penny would to most people--to spend all this money. At age 77, why the hell not? And wouldn't it be fun to be president? You only live once.
"Bloomberg could spend $100 million every single day on his presidential campaign between now and election day in November--basically more than any candidate except Bloomberg and fellow billionaire Tom Steyer have spent so far in the entire 2019-20 election cycle--and he would still have a net worth greater than $30 billion. He would remain one of the 30 richest people in the world."
Bloomberg may well be successful. He has already made media corporations hugely profitable by flooding the airwaves with his expensive and slick advertising--he has shown something corporate America knows well: carpet-bombing advertisements works if you can afford it--and this is just the beginning. He has bought off everyone with a pulse so he has a large chunk of the political class on his payroll, with many more to come. He will accordingly get terrific mainstream press coverage, the type any other candidate would like, and Bernie Sanders can't even begin to imagine.
In short, Bloomberg is demonstrating the deep problems of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits candidates to spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own campaigns, especially in a period of breathtaking wealth inequality. Why be like the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson and spend a fortune on other people running for office? You are the smart guy after all; spend it on yourself.
If Bloomberg is successful, this could well become the new normal. Presidential elections will be contests between the wealthy who put their own money on the line. Bloomberg demonstrates that no one else could possibly compete with them in terms of resources. We are already a way down that road in Congressional elections. The already fading notion that this is a functional democracy will take another sharp turn in the wrong direction.
Bloomberg explains his decision to run for president as a concern with how Trump is such a dreadful president and that he is best positioned to defeat Trump, restore integrity to governance, and change his deplorable policies, especially on the environment and guns.
Fair enough. But aside from the issue of billionaires buying elections, there is one other extraordinary flaw in his thinking: Bloomberg should be running against Trump as a Republican, not a Democrat. If he actually cared about this country more than stroking his massive ego that is exactly what he would be doing.
This is not such a crazy idea. For starters, Bloomberg is a Republican, or he was until the tea party and then Trump showed up. He fits the profile of the sort of traditional Republican most Americans have been familiar with for generations. He is pro-business, pro-empire, anti-labor, and not especially sympathetic to the concerns of minorities or the dispossessed. These old-school Republicans were committed to the rule of law, however, and to majority rule.
Now Trump has come in and crystallized currents already growing in the Republican Party, like the "tea party" explosion in 2009-10. With his endless lying and rejection of the rule of law, Trump has led the Republicans toward a stronger embrace of authoritarianism, even, dare I say it, fascism. There are discussions about whether Trump would even leave office were he to lose the 2020 presidential election! The career Republican politicians have capitulated to Trump en masse, hence discrediting this party in toto.
Because of the way U.S. elections are structured, we have a two-party system and it is very difficult to replace one of the existing parties with a new one, despite popular support for introducing new ideas into our politics. So the United States is moving toward an exceptionally dangerous place where one of the two main parties is flirting with fascism and dedicated to maintaining political power with only a minority of the country supporting it. It holds the rule of law in contempt.
Bloomberg could have been a real patriot and applied his billions of dollars to challenging Trump and the fascist trend within the Republican party. He could have done everything possible to expose Trump and to locate and encourage anti-Trump Republicans. He could have supported primary challengers on the Republican side to defeat Trump's allies and enablers. He could have built up a parallel party apparatus employing thousands of Republican operatives at big salaries. He probably would have lost, but you never know for sure until you try. Bloomberg could outspend Trump 20 to 1. He would have been able to force public attention to this issue, and keep it there. He might have made Trump completely crack up. At any rate, he would have had an enormous impact that might have helped to slow and begin to reverse the Trumpian drift.
"If Bloomberg is successful in buying the Democratic nomination... The party could disintegrate enough that Trump waltzes to a second term, precisely what Bloomberg claims he does not want to have happen."
Then, if he failed to get the Republican presidential nomination, Bloomberg could throw his support and his resources to the Democrats, as he claims he plans to do now.
He would have been a patriot, perhaps even a hero.
Instead, he has opted to bring his takeover project to the Democratic Party. The Democrats are currently in a profound struggle for determining the course of the party between their progressive and establishment wings. By most accounts, patching it up by November will be crucial for electoral success. Bloomberg's entrance as an establishment savior has won him understandable support from those Democrats who dislike the progressive trend, and believe, erroneously in my opinion, that Bloomberg is the best bet to defeat Trump in November. If Bloomberg is successful in buying the Democratic nomination, or being the kingmaker who decides it, it will generate such anger and antipathy in the progressive wing of the party to the point where even his billions cannot buy off people to see things his way. The party could disintegrate enough that Trump waltzes to a second term, precisely what Bloomberg claims he does not want to have happen.
The moral of the story for establishment Democrats is don't be seduced by Bloomberg and his billions. He will break up the Democrats and cost them the election if he or someone he supports takes the nomination.
So Bloomberg's legacy would be that he left his own party to the neo-fascist crowd and went on to blow-up the Democrats, keeping the Republicans in control.
That is 180 degrees away from being a hero, or a patriot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular