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.
The concentration of wealth in the U.S. will soon resemble the kind of dynasties common to European aristocracies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (Image: Inequality Media)
The crisis of income inequality in America is well-known, but there is another economic crisis developing much faster and with worse consequences. I'm talking about inequality of wealth.
The wealth gap is now staggering. In the 1970s, the wealthiest tenth of Americans owned about a third of the nation's total household wealth. Now, the wealthiest 10 percent owns about 75 percent of total household wealth.
"America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history."
America's richest one-tenth of one percent now owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
Wealth is also passed from generation to generation. An estimated 60% of the wealth in the United States is inherited. Many of today's super-rich never did a day's work in their lives. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.
America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history. As wealthy boomers die, an estimated $30 trillion will go to their children over the next three decades.
Over time, this wealth will continue to grow even further - without these folks lifting a finger. This concentration of wealth will soon resemble the kind of dynasties common to European aristocracies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
It's exactly what our Founding Fathers sought to combat by creating a system of government and economy grounded in meritocracy.
Dynastic wealth puts economic power into the hands of a relatively small number of people who make decisions about where and how to invest most of the nation's capital, as well as which nonprofit enterprises and charities deserve support, and what politicians merit their campaign contributions.
That means their decisions have a disproportionately large effect on America's future.
Dynastic wealth also magnifies race and gender disparities. Because of racism and sexism, women and people of color not only earn less. They have also saved less. Which is why the racial wealth gap and the gender wealth gap are huge and growing.
Today, government is financed almost entirely by income taxes and payroll taxes - totally ignoring the giant and growing wealth at the top.
So how do we address the crisis of wealth inequality?
A wealth tax, as proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would begin to tackle all this by placing a 2 percent tax on to wealth in excess of 50 million dollars.
According to estimates, this tax would generate 2.75 trillion dollars over the next decade, which could be used for health care, education, infrastructure, and everything else we need.
Not only would a wealth tax raise revenue and help bring the economy back into balance, but it would also protect our democracy by reducing the influence of the super-rich on our political system.
We must demand an economy that works for the many, not one that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. A wealth tax is a necessary first step.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
The crisis of income inequality in America is well-known, but there is another economic crisis developing much faster and with worse consequences. I'm talking about inequality of wealth.
The wealth gap is now staggering. In the 1970s, the wealthiest tenth of Americans owned about a third of the nation's total household wealth. Now, the wealthiest 10 percent owns about 75 percent of total household wealth.
"America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history."
America's richest one-tenth of one percent now owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
Wealth is also passed from generation to generation. An estimated 60% of the wealth in the United States is inherited. Many of today's super-rich never did a day's work in their lives. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.
America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history. As wealthy boomers die, an estimated $30 trillion will go to their children over the next three decades.
Over time, this wealth will continue to grow even further - without these folks lifting a finger. This concentration of wealth will soon resemble the kind of dynasties common to European aristocracies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
It's exactly what our Founding Fathers sought to combat by creating a system of government and economy grounded in meritocracy.
Dynastic wealth puts economic power into the hands of a relatively small number of people who make decisions about where and how to invest most of the nation's capital, as well as which nonprofit enterprises and charities deserve support, and what politicians merit their campaign contributions.
That means their decisions have a disproportionately large effect on America's future.
Dynastic wealth also magnifies race and gender disparities. Because of racism and sexism, women and people of color not only earn less. They have also saved less. Which is why the racial wealth gap and the gender wealth gap are huge and growing.
Today, government is financed almost entirely by income taxes and payroll taxes - totally ignoring the giant and growing wealth at the top.
So how do we address the crisis of wealth inequality?
A wealth tax, as proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would begin to tackle all this by placing a 2 percent tax on to wealth in excess of 50 million dollars.
According to estimates, this tax would generate 2.75 trillion dollars over the next decade, which could be used for health care, education, infrastructure, and everything else we need.
Not only would a wealth tax raise revenue and help bring the economy back into balance, but it would also protect our democracy by reducing the influence of the super-rich on our political system.
We must demand an economy that works for the many, not one that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. A wealth tax is a necessary first step.
The crisis of income inequality in America is well-known, but there is another economic crisis developing much faster and with worse consequences. I'm talking about inequality of wealth.
The wealth gap is now staggering. In the 1970s, the wealthiest tenth of Americans owned about a third of the nation's total household wealth. Now, the wealthiest 10 percent owns about 75 percent of total household wealth.
"America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history."
America's richest one-tenth of one percent now owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
Wealth is also passed from generation to generation. An estimated 60% of the wealth in the United States is inherited. Many of today's super-rich never did a day's work in their lives. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined.
America is now on the cusp of the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history. As wealthy boomers die, an estimated $30 trillion will go to their children over the next three decades.
Over time, this wealth will continue to grow even further - without these folks lifting a finger. This concentration of wealth will soon resemble the kind of dynasties common to European aristocracies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
It's exactly what our Founding Fathers sought to combat by creating a system of government and economy grounded in meritocracy.
Dynastic wealth puts economic power into the hands of a relatively small number of people who make decisions about where and how to invest most of the nation's capital, as well as which nonprofit enterprises and charities deserve support, and what politicians merit their campaign contributions.
That means their decisions have a disproportionately large effect on America's future.
Dynastic wealth also magnifies race and gender disparities. Because of racism and sexism, women and people of color not only earn less. They have also saved less. Which is why the racial wealth gap and the gender wealth gap are huge and growing.
Today, government is financed almost entirely by income taxes and payroll taxes - totally ignoring the giant and growing wealth at the top.
So how do we address the crisis of wealth inequality?
A wealth tax, as proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, would begin to tackle all this by placing a 2 percent tax on to wealth in excess of 50 million dollars.
According to estimates, this tax would generate 2.75 trillion dollars over the next decade, which could be used for health care, education, infrastructure, and everything else we need.
Not only would a wealth tax raise revenue and help bring the economy back into balance, but it would also protect our democracy by reducing the influence of the super-rich on our political system.
We must demand an economy that works for the many, not one that concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. A wealth tax is a necessary first step.
Early voting is underway for the April 1 election to determine ideological control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and right-wing billionaire Elon Musk recently admitted why he is pouring millions of dollars into the close contest: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn" in the state.
As Mother Jones' Ari Berman reported Tuesday, Musk—the richest person in the world and a key figure in Republican President Donald Trump's administration—made that comment Saturday, while hosting the right-wing candidate, Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), for a discussion on X, the billionaire's social media platform.
Musk said that if Judge Susan Crawford of Dane County wins, "then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats. In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin. It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Liberals have had a 4-3 majority on the swing state's highest court since the 2023 election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Crawford and Schimel are fighting for a 10-year term filling the seat now occupied by 74-year-old left-leaning Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who decided not to seek reelection. In addition to determining the future of Republicans' 6-2 advantage for congressional districts, next week's election is expected to impact abortion care, labor rights, and voter suppression efforts in Wisconsin.
From @ariberman.bsky.social: Elon Musk revealed why he's spending millions to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court It’s all about preserving gerrymandered districts that lock in Republican power. www.motherjones.com/politics/202...
[image or embed]
— Joe Sudbay (@joesudbay.bsky.social) March 25, 2025 at 5:14 PM
Berman noted that if Crawford won and Wisconsin's maps changed before the 2026 midterm elections, a Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Represntatives could "scrutinize the unprecedented role Musk is playing in shredding the federal government, accessing sensitive personal information on millions of Americans, and the $38 billion in federal funding his businesses receive."
The billionaire also has a personal stake in the race related to one of his businesses. As The New York Times noted Saturday: "A conservative-controlled court could be in a position to issue a Musk-friendly decision in a lawsuit from his electric car company, Tesla, challenging Wisconsin's law prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from owning dealerships. On social media, Mr. Musk began to show interest in the Wisconsin court election eight days after Tesla filed the lawsuit in January."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman told The Associated Press on Monday that "this race is the first real test point in the country on Elon Musk and his influence on our politics, and voters want an opportunity to push back on that and the influence he is trying to make on Wisconsin and the rest of country."
As of Tuesday, Musk has recently given at least $3 million to the state's Republican Party, according to WisPolitics—which has also "tracked nearly $19.5 million in spending" on the race by two political action committees (PACs) affiliated with the billionaire.
GOP paid canvasser shows depth of support for Schimel. None. www.jsonline.com/story/news/p...
[image or embed]
— Mark Pocan (@markpocan.bsky.social) March 25, 2025 at 9:58 AM
As Common Dreams reported last week, Musk's America PAC is also offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing "activist judges," which led critics to accuse the billionaire of trying to buy the state Supreme Court seat.
Those critics include the Working Families Party, which has sent a pair of emails in recent days highlighting how much Musk has spent "to install MAGA extremist Brad Schimel" on the court, and arguing that "Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world."
Forbes reported Tuesday that "Musk is far from the only billionaire who is financially backing the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Among the other billionaires listed in public filings as spending thousands to support Schimel—either directly or through the Wisconsin Republican Party—are ABC Supply co-founder Diane Hendricks, Uline president Elizabeth Uihlein, Uline CEO Richard Uihlein, and Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs. Crawford has also drawn significant billionaire support from the likes of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and Democratic megadonor George Soros, who gave the Wisconsin Democratic Party $1 million in January."
WisPolitics noted Tuesday that "Crawford has now reported $26.5 million raised, a record for any judicial candidate in U.S. history," while Schimel "has now raised $14.3 million." However, according to Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money on the race is favoring the right-wing candidate.
"It's already the most expensive judicial race in American history," Waldman said in a Tuesday newsletter. "According to data collected by the Brennan Center and analyzed by my colleagues Ian Vandewalker and Douglas Keith, campaigns and committees have spent $81 million so far, with a week to go."
"Much of the money being spent is untraceable," he stressed. "As the latest data shows, Crawford's campaign spending of $22 million is more than double that of Schimel's $10.4 million. But independent groups like super PACs and nonprofits spending untraceable dark money favor Schimel by a much larger margin: $13.5 million benefiting Crawford compared with almost $35.5 million boosting Schimel."
Schimel also got a boost on Friday from Trump, who endorsed him on social media, writing in part that "Radical Left Liberal Susan Crawford... is the handpicked voice of the Leftists who are out to destroy your State, and our Country." The president added Saturday: "It's a really big and important race, and could have much to do with the future of our Country. Get out and VOTE, NOW, for the Republican Candidate—BRAD!!!"
Meanwhile, Crawford is backed by groups like Wisconsin Conservation Voters IEC, which has invested more than $1.13 million to turn voters out in support of her.
"The stakes in this election could not be higher," the group's deputy director, Seth Hoffmeister, said in a Tuesday statement. "Judge Susan Crawford will defend our democracy and protect Wisconsin's natural resources. She is a strong advocate for the values that make Wisconsin great—fairness, accountability, and a commitment to serving the people, not polluters. Judge Crawford will ensure that our State Supreme Court remains independent and dedicated to upholding the rights and freedoms of all Wisconsinites."
"Given Dr. Oz's history of basically acting as a salesman for Medicare Advantage, putting him in charge of regulating these middlemen would be like letting the fox guard the henhhouse," said one Democratic senator.
The U.S. Senate Finance Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to advance the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a move that drew widespread rebuke from consumer advocates and others who pointed to the celebrity surgeon's advocacy for private Medicare Advantage plans and other red flags.
The Finance Committee voted 14-13 to send Oz's nomination to a full Senate vote, with Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) hailing the former television talk show host's "years of experience as an acclaimed physician and public health advocate."
However, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the committee's ranking member, said he voted against Oz, explaining that the nominee "was given the chance to assure the American people that he would not be a rubber stamp for Republicans' plans to gut Medicaid" and raise Affordable Care Act premiums, but "at every turn, he failed the test."
"No senator should be fooled by the snake oil Oz is selling."
Wyden said he is "deeply concerned about Dr. Oz's history marketing Medicare Advantage plans," which, as frequent Common Dreams opinion contributor Thom Hartmann explained, are not part of Medicare but are a private health insurance "scam" created by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush "as a way of routing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of for-profit insurance companies.
Wyden added, "Given Dr. Oz's history of basically acting as a salesman for Medicare Advantage, putting him in charge of regulating these middlemen would be like letting the fox guard the henhouse."
Last December, the watchdog Accountable.US revealed that Oz had invested as much as $56 million in three companies with wdirect CMS interests. In 2022, Oz's single biggest healthcare holding was up to $26 million in Sharecare, a digital health company he co-founded, and which became the exclusive in-home supplemental care program for 1.5 million Medicare Advantage customers. Nick Clemens, Oz's spokesperson on the Trump transition team, told USA TODAY last December that Oz sold his stake in Sharecare.
These and other apparent conflicts of interest prompted denunciations from progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who also called attention to Oz's promotion of "quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said Tuesday: "Mehmet Oz is fundamentally unqualified for the position of administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and should never have been nominated for the position based on his conflicts of interest alone. The Senate Finance Committee should have unanimously rejected his confirmation."
Weissman continued:
Under Oz's watch, could strip crucial healthcare services through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act could be stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans. As he showed in his confirmation hearing, Oz would seek to further privatize Medicare, threatening access to care for tens of millions of Americans. Privatized Medicare Advantage plans deliver inferior care and cost taxpayers nearly $100 billion annually in excess costs.
He also refused to commit to push back on efforts to slash Medicaid, which would harm access to care for millions—especially the poor and vulnerable—just so Trump and [and his adviser Elon] Musk can give tax breaks to their billionaire buddies.
"We need a CMS administrator who believes in the importance of protecting crucial health programs like Medicare and Medicaid hand would put patients ahead of corporate profits," Weissman added. "We can only hope that sanity prevails when Oz comes for a vote before the full Senate. No senator should be fooled by the snake oil Oz is selling."
Tuesday's vote came as congressional Republicans seek to
slash $880 billion from programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee—which include Medicaid—in order to help pay for Trump's $4.5 trillion tax cut, which experts say would overwhelmingly benefit the ultrawealthy and corporations.
"Huckabee uses his Christianity to justify ethnic cleansing," said one protestor at Huckabee's confirmation hearing.
Dozens of progressive, faith, and human rights groups on Monday sent a letter to U.S. Senate leaders and the top lawmakers on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urging them to oppose the nomination of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, calling him "unfit" and citing his "extreme views supporting the Israeli government's genocide of Palestinians."
The letter was released a day prior to Huckabee's confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The hearing on Tuesday was interrupted by protestors who had messages such as: "Huckabee uses his Christianity to justify ethnic cleansing." Huckabee is an evangelical Christian and longtime supporter of Israel who has pushed Christian Zionist views.
Huckabee, who has taken more than 100 trips to Israel since 1973, has "consistently engaged in inflammatory and discriminatory statements that demonize Palestinians and Muslims," according to the letter.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Huckabee told a rabbi in Massachusetts that "there's really no such thing as a Palestinian." During a trip to the West Bank in 2017, Huckabee said: "there is no such thing as a West Bank... There's no such thing as a settlement. They're communities, they're neighborhoods, they're cities. There's no such thing as an occupation."
The letter, which was from over 65 organizations including Jewish Voice for Peace Action, CodePink, and Hindus for Human Rights, argues that Huckabee's "Christian nationalist beliefs are also inherently a form of antisemitism, as it is predicated on the expulsion of Jews from the diaspora to the land of Palestine and the demonization of Palestinians and Muslims as enemies of God."
"At a time when the United States should strive to rebuild its credibility, appointing an individual with a history of extremist, apocalyptic, and hateful views to such a critical role would be a grave mistake," the letter states.
Israel's deadly campaign on the Gaza Strip that began in October 2023 has now killed over 50,000 people, according to local health officials. Last week, Israel resumed strikes following a cease-fire that last roughly two months after Israel refused to hold talks regarding a permanent end to the war.
At the confirmation hearing, Huckabee attempted to distance himself from his past statements about Palestinians, according to The Associated Press, and said he would "carry out the president's priorities, not mine."
The groups who sent the letter Monday are not alone in opposing Huckabee's nomination. Pro-Israel voices have also said he is not right for the role.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, said in a statement Monday that Huckabee is "woefully unfit" to serve as ambassador to Israel and a "vote for Huckabee is a vote to empower a Christian nationalist vision for American foreign policy."
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the pro-Israel group J Street, said in a statement Monday that Huckabee's views "would undermine American interests and the administration's own stated commitment to pursuit of long-term regional peace and security."
"Mr. Huckabee's embrace of annexation, extremist settlers, and fanatical Christian Zionism stands in stark contrast to the Jewish, democratic values held by the overwhelming majority of our community—and in stark contrast to Israel's founding values of justice, equality and peace," he also said.