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
inflation
Trump Is Turning the White House Into a Billionaire Time-Share
It appears that Trump has entered into a power-sharing agreement with Musk and several other wealthy individuals including Vivek Ramaswamy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and David Sacks.
Dec 28, 2024
Democracy decays into oligarchy when a few individuals accumulate most of the political power.
The reelection of Donald Trump has accelerated the decline of the United States into oligarchy. Trump has had billionaire donors for each of his presidential campaigns, but in 2024 the role of these wealthy donors expanded. Donors such as Elon Musk made gigantic contributions to Trump’s campaign; in return for this they are taking an active role in the Trump White House. Perhaps, this time around, Trump turned the oval office into a time-share.
On December 19, Elon Musk led the call for House Republicans to repudiate a continuing resolution they had just negotiated to keep the federal government running through the end of the year. Perhaps Musk’s charter includes coordination with Congress.
When Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy speak of increasing government efficiency, they usually start with services for the unfortunate.
It appears that Trump has entered into a power-sharing agreement with Musk and several other wealthy individuals including Vivek Ramaswamy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and David Sacks. However this arrangement works, it’s likely that the Trump administration will cater to billionaires—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) observed that the 13 billionaires chosen by Trump to serve in his administration have a combined wealth of at least $383 billion.
What do these billionaires want? The oligarchs and billionaires want lower taxes and reduced government regulations. Of course, each billionaire has a particular set of interests; for example, David Sacks, Trump’s “AI and crypto czar,” is a venture capitalist with heavy investment in AI and crypto. Sadly. most of the oligarchs are climate-change deniers.
The oligarchs want more wealth. Robert Reich observes:
Since [1980], the median wage of the bottom 90% has stagnated. The share of the nation’s wealth owned by the richest 400 Americans has quadrupled (from less than 1% to 3.5%) while the share owned by the entire bottom half of America has dropped to 1.3%… The richest 1% of Americans now has more wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
The oligarchs share a fiscally conservative agenda. They intend to shrink the size of the federal government. The particulars vary but the oligarchs are not concerned with the size of the defense budget; their cost-cutting focus is on programs that service the poor and disadvantaged—such as Medicaid. When Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy speak of increasing government efficiency, they usually start with services for the unfortunate.
What are the practical consequences of this shift to oligarchy? It’s unsettling to be in a political situation where we do not understand who is in charge at the White House. We don’t know how power-sharing will work. The relationship between Trump and Congress has been fraught. The shift to oligarchy will make this relationship even more difficult.
Will the oligarchs fix the economy? Trump was elected because he promised to fix the economy. Most Americans believed he would drive down inflation; they thought Trump would reduce the cost of food, housing, and household and medical expenses. Since November 5, Trump has given no indication of how he plans to do this. Perhaps he has lost interest.
During the presidential campaign, Trump said his inflation-fighting agenda would rely upon tariffs, but it’s likely that the oligarchs will influence how Trump’s tariff strategy plays out. Musk has huge business interests in China, and it’s unlikely that he would support a tariff policy that would hurt his relationships with the country.
Trump has appointed a “czar” for immigration (Tom Homan), energy (Doug Burgum), and AI & Crypto (Sacks). Trump has not appointed a czar for inflation. With much fanfare, Trump has appointed a commission on “government efficiency;” they’ve already started meeting. Trump has not appointed to a commission to curb inflation.
After January 20, Trump will own inflation and the economy. Trump’s immigration “purge” will drive up the cost of food. Trump’s tariffs will drive up the cost of household expenses.
Trump’s trying to ignore inflation. Or turn it over to an oligarch co-president. Stay tuned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Record 88 US Jurisdictions to Raise Minimum Wages in 2025 as Federal Pay Floor Remains Stagnant
"It's time for Congress to deliver for workers on the federal level," said one advocate.
Dec 24, 2024
While the federal minimum wage hasn't budged from a paltry $7.25 an hour since the last time it was raised in 2009, states and local governments are taking action to boost wages in the face of rising costs.
A record 88 jurisdictions will raise their minimum wage floors by the end of the coming year, according to a report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP), a nonprofit advocacy organization. The 88 jurisdictions include 23 states and 65 cities and counties—of those, 70 jurisdictions are enacting wages that will reach or exceed $15 an hour for some or all employees, and 53 jurisdictions will enact a wage floor that reaches or exceeds $17 an hour for all or some workers.
The states enacting increases on January 1, 2025 include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, per NELP.
"Next year, Illinois's workers are getting another raise," Illinois Governor JB Pritzker announced proudly on X. Workers will be getting a minimum wage increase of $1 per hour in Illinois in 2025, from $14 to $15.
"In the absence of progress at the federal level, workers and advocates are continuing to take action at the ballot box, statehouses, and in their city councils. Thanks to years-long worker-led campaigns, these victories will help workers keep up with the rising cost of living, especially Black and brown workers who are disproportionately affected by low wages and economic insecurity," said Rebecca Dixon, president and CEO of the NELP in a statement.
"Now it's time for Congress to deliver for workers on the federal level," she added.
Arkansas, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, and West Virginia, which all have minimum wage laws above the federal rate of $7.25, are not slated to raise their minimum wages in 2025. Currently there 20 states with a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, either because the state's minimum wage is $7.25 or below, or there is no state-mandated minimum wage, so the federal dollar amount applies, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
The NELP report highlights particularly consequential wage increase victories. For example, voters in the GOP-controlled state of Alaska approved a ballot initiative that raised the minimum wage to $15 by 2027 and also enacted a paid sick leave policy, according to NELP.
"Alaska is one of seven states that do not currently allow employers to subsidize their payroll costs through the use of tip credits, making this victory especially consequential for tipped workers," according to the report.
In Arizona, voters defeated Proposition 138 by a wide margin. The ballot measure was restaurant industry-backed and "would have cut wages for tipped workers by expanding the 'tip credit' from a fixed $3.00 less than the full minimum wage to 25% less than the full minimum wage," according to NELP.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats' Working-Class Failures, Analysis Finds, Are 'Why Trump Beat Harris'
"By branding itself as an active party of economic populism that fights for needed changes for the working class, the Democratic Party can put itself in a position to regain the support of the voters it lost in 2024."
Dec 17, 2024
Further bolstering the post-election argument that U.S. working-class voters have ditched the Democratic Party because they feel abandoned by Democrats, a Tuesday analysis details why Vice President Kamala Harris lost to Republican President-elect Donald Trump.
The report by Data for Progress, a left-leaning think tank, uses dozens of national surveys of likely voters conducted throughout 2024 to back up assertions that the party needs to improve its messaging and policies targeting working people if Democrats want to win future U.S. elections, after losing the White House and both chambers of Congress last month.
Data for Progress found that before Democratic President Joe Biden passed the torch to Harris this summer following a disastrous debate performance against Trump, "voters were highly concerned about his age, and swing voters overwhelmingly cited it as the main reason they wouldn't vote for Biden."
"Voters were also deeply unsatisfied with Biden's economy," the 40-page report states. "A strong majority perceived the economy as getting worse for people like them, with more than 3 in 4 consistently reporting they were paying more for groceries. Voters blamed Biden more than any other person or group for U.S. economic conditions."
"While voters across party lines strongly supported Biden's populist economic policies, many were not aware that his administration had enacted them," the document details. "When Harris entered the race, her favorability surged, along with Democrats' and Independents' enthusiasm for voting in the election."
However, "on the economy—voters' top issue—Harris struggled to escape Biden's legacy. Half of voters said that Harris would mostly continue the same policies as Biden, leading swing state voters to prefer Trump on handling inflation," Data for Progress explained. This, despite warnings from economic justice advocates and Nobel Prize-winning economists that Harris' plan for the economy was "vastly superior" to the Trump agenda.
"Harris was effective at communicating to voters that she supported increasing taxes on billionaires, but struggled to break through with other aspects of her popular economic agenda," the think tank noted. "Most voters heard only 'a little' or 'nothing at all' about her plans to crack down on corporate price gouging, protect Social Security and Medicare, and lower the price of groceries, prescription drugs, and childcare."
The report on "why Trump beat Harris" also highlights that "beyond the economy, Democrats struggled mightily on immigration and foreign policy, with a surge of border crossings at the end of 2023 and major international conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine damaging trust in Biden and Harris on these issues."
"While Democrats had some success breaking through on their stronger issues—abortion and democracy—they struggled with these issues being less important to voters, and with the fact that many voters were unsure of Trump's support for Project 2025," the document adds, referencing the Heritage Foundation-led playbook crafted for the next Republican president.
Although billionaire-backed Trump is a well-documented liar expected to now implement a series of right-wing Project 2025 policies, the former reality television star has demonstrated an ability to capture attention via traditional press and newer media, launching his Truth Social platform, appearing on various podcasts, and reportedly taking advice from his 18-year-old son about reaching young people.
Data for Progress observed that "while Harris held an advantage with voters who regularly consume political news, those who consume little or no political news—a group that disproportionately consumes content on social media—supported Harris at much lower rates."
As the think tank concluded:
Broadly, these findings indicate that the Democratic Party needs to do far more work to break through to voters—particularly those who are politically disengaged—on the economy. Democrats' economically populist agenda is overwhelmingly popular, but they need to more clearly communicate it to voters and engage in more robust communications. Earlier this year, President Biden declined the traditional pre-Super Bowl interview for the second year in a row, when 123 million Americans tuned in—the most-watched Super Bowl in history. In fact, Biden will leave office having done the fewest number of press conferences among recent presidents. Even when Harris took over the top of the ticket in July, she waited weeks before doing her first major broadcast interview in late August. Democrats need to do the basics of actively communicating their agenda to the American people, including through non-traditional media to reach disengaged voters. Voters crave authenticity and engagement, which they found in Trump.
Democrats also need to more actively demonstrate to voters that they are the party of change. They need to show voters that they are capable of fixing our country's immigration system and foreign conflicts by taking a serious but humane approach to border security and supporting popular solutions to conflicts abroad.
"By branding itself as an active party of economic populism that fights for needed changes for the working class," the group stressed, "the Democratic Party can put itself in a position to regain the support of the voters it lost in 2024."
Echoing that conclusion in a Tuesday statement, Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth declared that "this report should serve as a clarion call to Democrats who let a billionaire con man outflank them on cost-of-living issues."
"Voters are tired of the status quo, one in which the ultrarich and largest corporations rake in record profits while working families struggle to afford groceries," she said. "If Democrats want to take back Congress, they need to recruit candidates who can buck the unpopular establishment and authentically communicate to the communities they seek to represent."
Progressives in Congress—such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020; "Squad" members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.); and Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders, including outgoing Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and incoming Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas)—have long made that same point, but they have been particularly vocal about it after the devastating federal electoral losses in November.
On Tuesday, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) narrowly
defeated Ocasio-Cortez to lead Democrats on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in the next congressional session—a contest that was widely seen as a proxy fight between the party's younger, more progressive faction and the establishment that couldn't win over voters last month.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular