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.
If there was ever a moment when progressives needed to communicate our vision to the people of our country, this is that time. Despair is not an option.
As we enter this new year, it’s important to reflect upon the reality that we are living in a pivotal and volatile moment in American history. Within that context our job is not only to understand what’s happening all around us, but to determine the best way forward to create a nation and world that benefits all people, not just the wealthy and powerful few.
And right now, the defining issue of our time is that we are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic and authoritarian society in which billionaires not only dominate our economic life, but the information we consume and our politics as well.
Today, we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had.
Today, we have more concentration of ownership than we’ve ever had.
Today, we have more corporate control of the media than we’ve ever had.
Today, we have more billionaire money buying elections than ever before.
Today, we have a president-elect who is a pathological liar, who has little regard for the rule of law, who is suing media outlets that criticize him and threatening to jail his political opponents.
A manifestation of the current moment is the rise of Elon Musk, and all that he stands for.
Within the last two years alone Mr. Musk, the richest man in the world, has used his wealth to purchase the largest media platform on the internet, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect a president and give Republicans control of the House and Senate, was nominated to fill an unelected, non-confirmable position in charge of making huge budget cuts, succeeded in getting Congress to abandon a bill he didn't like, and then threatened to unseat elected officials if they did not follow his orders to shut down the government during the holidays. He is also forging alliances with autocrats throughout the world, and supporting a far-right party in the coming German elections.
But it’s not just Musk. Billionaire owners of two major newspapers overrode their editorial boards' decisions to endorse Kamala Harris, while many others are kissing Trump’s ring by making large donations to his inauguration committee slush fund.
In the midst of all this, a simple question must be asked. What do Musk, Bezos and the other billionaires want? What is motivating them? What kind of nation and world are they trying to create? While it would take a book to answer that question, let me jot down a few obvious observations.
They do not believe in democracy—the right of ordinary people to control their own futures. They firmly believe that the rich and powerful should determine the future. Left alone, they will dominate both major political parties and, through their media ownership, control the flow of information.
They do not accept what most major religions, in one form or another, have historically taught us to be ethical behavior: to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They believe that greed, and the accumulation of wealth and power is a virtue, and that the strong should dominate the weak.
Their vision is one where the government serves the rich at the expense of working families and the poor. It is a vision where breaking unions and exploiting workers is good, making huge profits off human illness is good, monopolization of the economy and the media is good, racism, sexism and xenophobia is good, producing carbon emissions and destroying our planet is good, providing tax cuts for the richest Americans is good, making money by putting poor people into prisons is good, and on and on it goes...
That is what the oligarchs want.
We, as progressives, have a vision that is radically different.
Can we create an economic system based on the principles of justice, not greed? Yes, we can.
Can we transform a rigged and corrupt political system and create a vibrant democracy based on one person, one vote? Yes, we can.
Can we make health care a human right as we establish a system designed to keep us healthy and extend our life expectancy, not one based on the profit needs of insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry? Yes, we can.
Can we, in the wealthiest country on earth, provide free quality public education and job training for all from child care to graduate school? Yes, we can.
Can we combat climate change and protect the very habitability of our planet for future generations, and create millions of jobs in the process? Yes, we can.
Can we make certain that artificial intelligence and other exploding technologies are used to improve the quality of life for working people, and not just make the billionaire class even richer. Yes, we can.
And even though we are not going to succeed in achieving that vision in the immediate future with Trump as president and Republicans controlling Congress, it is important that vision be maintained and we continue to fight for it.
As part of that effort, we’ve got a lot of strategizing and work in front of us. For example, how do we effectively communicate our ideas to the vast majority of Americans who are with us, even while the billionaire class of this country controls so much of the media.
How do we leverage our collective power to elect progressives to local, state and federal positions while a small number of billionaires and their super-PACs are buying elections.
How do we mobilize the working class around the day to day issues which impact their lives: building the trade union movement, health care, housing, education, family based agriculture and so much more.
How do we fight back, on a day to day basis, against the reactionary policies of the Trump administration?
Will this effort be easy? No, of course it will not.
Can it be done? We have no choice.
If there was ever a moment when progressives needed to communicate our vision to the people of our country, this is that time. Despair is not an option. We are fighting not only for ourselves. We are fighting for our kids and future generations, and for the well-being of the planet.
Thank you for standing with me in that fight. Let’s go forward together.
Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go. It's the opposite of a solution, especially when we know what's needed and what works.
This summer, the Supreme Court’s Grants Passruling made it much easier for local governments to criminalize homelessness. Since then, cities and states across the country have stepped up their harassment of people for the “crime” of not having a place to live.
Penalizing homelessness has increasingly taken the form of crackdowns on encampments — also known as “sweeps,” which have received bipartisan support. California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered state agencies to ramp up encampment sweeps, while President-elect Donald Trump has also pledged to ban encampments and move people to “tent cities” far from public view.
Evidence shows that these sweeps are harmful and unproductive — and not to mention dehumanizing.
Housing justice advocates caution that sweeps disrupt peoples’ lives by severing their ties to case workers, medical care, and other vital services. Many unhoused people also have their personal documents and other critical belongings seized or tossed, which makes it even harder to find housing and work.
Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness.
According to a ProPublica investigation, authorities in multiple cities have confiscated basic survival items like tents and blankets, as well as medical supplies like CPAP machines and insulin. Other people lost items like phones and tools that impacted their ability to work.
Teresa Stratton from Portland toldProPublica that her husband’s ashes were even taken in a sweep. “I wonder where he is,” she said. “I hope he’s not in the dump.”
Over the summer, the city of Sacramento, California forcefully evicted 48 residents — mostly women over 55 with disabilities — from a self-governed encampment known as Camp Resolution. The camp was located at a vacant lot and had been authorized by the city, which also owned the trailers where residents lived.
One of the residents who’d been at the hospital during the sweep was assured that her belongings would be kept safe. However, she told me she lost everything she’d worked so hard to acquire, including her car.
The loss of her home and community of two years, along with her possessions, was already traumatizing. But now, like most of the camp residents, she was forced back onto the streets — even though the city had promised not to sweep the lot until every resident had been placed in permanent housing.
Aside from being inhumane, the seizure of personal belongings raises serious constitutional questions — especially since sweeps often take place with little to no warning and authorities often fail to properly store belongings. Six unhoused New Yorkers recently sued the city on Fourth Amendment grounds, citing these practices.
Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness. Encampments can pose challenges to local communities, but their prevalence stems from our nation’s failure to ensure the fundamental human right to housing.
People experiencing homelessness are often derided as an “eyesore” and blamed for their plight. However, government policies have allowed housing, a basic necessity for survival, to become commodified and controlled by corporations and billionaire investors for profit.
Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 since 2009 and rent is now unaffordable for half of all tenants. Alongside eroding social safety nets, these policies have resulted in a housing affordability crisis that’s left at least 653,000 people without housing nationwide.
While shelters can help some people move indoors temporarily, they aren’t a real housing solution, either.
Human rights groups report that shelters often don’t meet adequate standards of housing or accommodate people with disabilities. Many treat people like they’re incarcerated by imposing curfews and other restrictions, such as not allowing pets. Safety and privacy at shelters are also growing concerns.
Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go. Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all, coupled with supportive services.
Anything else is sweeping the problem under the rug.
The Faircloth Amendment and the consistent underfunding of public housing has caused the number of public housing units to decline 40% from 1.4 million in 1994 to 835,000 in 2022 while the need has steadily increased.
Randall Irvin has been waiting for public housing in Chicago for six years, and his situation is not that unusual. For example, there are over 100,000 families on San Antonio’s waitlist for public housing. In Chicago, there were more than 200,000 families on the waitlist in 2023. Public housing waiting lists are extremely long because there is an inadequate supply—and a 1998 amendment to federal housing law is a significant barrier to building new housing.
Table 1 lists the average number of months households waited before they were able to receive public housing in selected metropolitan areas according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. It ranges from a low of 11 months in San Antonio to a high of 84 months (seven years) in Miami. These numbers hide the wide range of variation around the average. In the city of Chicago, families can wait for as few as six months or as long as 25 years depending on the specifics of their situation and their family size. Households that are still waiting for housing or that never receive housing are not included in the calculation of the averages, so these average wait times do not fully capture the difficulty of obtaining public housing.
The families remaining on public housing waitlists for housing for years are in desperate situations. They are people who are homeless, who are living in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and who are struggling to afford their housing. In Washington, D.C., Rosalynn Talley, who waited 14 years for public housing, described her overcrowded housing situation as being “smashed up like sardines.” Her neighborhood was also unsafe, and there was mold in the house.
Congress is to blame for the low supply of public housing. In 1998, Congress passed the Faircloth Amendment which put a cap on the number of public housing units. The cap and the consistent underfunding of public housing has caused the number of public housing units to decline 40% from 1.4 million in 1994 to 835,000 in 2022 while the need for affordable housing has steadily increased.
Public housing is one of the most affordable forms of housing, but affordable housing policy has shifted to relying on the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). LIHTC goes to private developers and investors and creates “affordable” housing that is often more expensive to renters than public housing. The Joint Center for Housing Studies reports that “LIHTC [housing] does not necessarily protect a renter from [housing] cost burdens.” While the Faircloth Amendment has been a benefit to the for-profit real estate industry, it has hurt low-income renters.
Thankfully, there are some in Congress working to undo this bad law. The Homes Act, introduced by Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), if passed, would repeal the Faircloth Amendment and provide the funding needed to address the maintenance and repair backlog in public housing. Currently, the bill has 40 supporters in the House of Representatives and two supporters in the Senate. Repealing the Faircloth Amendment would open another channel to address the affordable housing crisis.