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.
A flotilla of activists from Center for Popular Democracy, CASA, and Greenpeace USA take to kayaks and electric boats to demonstrate near Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) houseboat in the Washington, D.C. Wharf to demand that he support the Build Back Better Act.
It's 'popularism' week in the commentariat, as pundits across the ideological spectrum discuss recent remarks by pollster David Shor. This problematic and imprecise term reflects a way of thinking about politics that is poised to reshape the Build Back Better debate, and other debates yet to come. That's potentially disastrous.
Shor has written and spoken extensively on the need for Democrats to back away from talking about unpopular ideas and listen more to pollsters like... well, like David Shor. Ezra Klein covered his ideas well, but the headline for his piece gets it wrong. Shor isn't "telling Democrats what they don't want to hear." Shor's words are music to the ears of Democratic centrists.
Shor seems like an engaging, bright guy. His 'popularism' concept is interesting, if not very well defined, and his framework makes the most sense when he's talking about phrases that poll badly in core Democratic demographics. "Defund the police" performs poorly among communities of color, for example, and it's easy to see why it's a problem.
The problem arises, as it always does, when Democrats craft tomorrow's policies on today's poll readings. That's like prescribing medication today based on what your temperature was last week. Poll results are transient and reflect the biases of the pollster. Most importantly, they fail to consider the political impact of policies that sound convincing when asked by a pollster, but which are infuriating and unfair once they're enacted.
Shor emphasized his own leftism in interviews and, to be fair, he doesn't say politicians should shape their policies on what polls well. He says they should talk about things that poll well and play down the things that don't. In the real world, however, there's not much difference between the two. You can't pass a law in Congress without talking about it. Even if you try, if it's unpopular you can bet your opponents will.
The problem with Build Back Better isn't that its vision is too grand. On the contrary. Millions of people in this country are facing eviction. Millions more--with and without health insurance--can't afford medical care. People are dying, going hungry, and doing without shelter.
In the real world, whether intentionally or not, 'popularism' becomes an argument for passing only policies that poll well. When seen in that light, 'popularism' sounds less like a canny electoral strategy and more like a post-millennial repackaging of a previous generation's centrism. As the meme goes, "How do you do, fellow kids?"
The Democratic debate over cuts to Biden's reconciliation bill is already starting to reflect something like 'popularism.' Sen. Joe Manchin's rhetorical attack--that it's "basically changing our whole society to an entitlement mentality"--reflects the poll-driven Democratic rhetoric of the past three decades. So does his demand that benefits be "needs-based with means-testing guardrails."
That didn't come out of nowhere. As Jamelle Bouie writes, "there was a point--in the very recent past--when (Manchin's) views were the dominant ideological position within the Democratic Party, both a consequence of and a driving force in the neoliberal transformation of the United States." That reflects another problem with 'popularism': the polls may change, but the thinking doesn't always change with it.
Shor also makes some important points. He recently pointed out that "If you were rank ordering purely on popularity then pharma drug negotiation, anti-usury laws, and adding dental/vision to Medicare would be at the top." He went on to say that "expanding Social Security and wealth taxes ... also do very well."
Why, then, has popularism already come to be defined as some sort of contrarian, bitter pill Democrats must be forced to swallow? A lot of that has to do with Shor's own presentation of the data. New York Times reporter Nate Cohn points out Shor's ideal campaign looks a lot like Obama's 2012 run. But, as Cohn points out, "The last ten years have had a huge effect on the partisan allegiance of millions of white working-class voters ... They don't default to Democrats anymore. Many are now just Republicans."
What Cohn doesn't say, but I will, is that those defections are due in part to Obama's policies.
When I wrote about the history and ideology of means testing for The American Prospect in 2019, the Democratic Party was in the throes of hashing out broad issues of inclusion and universality in its approach to public policy. The candidates most closely associated with the universalist approach, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, lost. But the ideology itself made enormous gains, aided in part by the pandemic's role in exposing holes in the social safety net. Now, the Democratic holdouts in the House and Senate are reigniting that debate. As the Build Back Better debate rages on, there will be a strong temptation to fall back on its old posture.
The divisive nature of the 'popularist' approach has led to some surprising outcomes. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a New Jersey Democrat whose district went for Trump in 2016, led the House effort to expand access to child care benefits. She didn't do it because she's a social democrat (hardly!), but because the divisive nature of the popularist strategy left too many of her middle-class constituents out. "I will not let another federal program pay less to New Jersey taxpayers than it does to all other Americans," Sherrill said.
That may not be a noble sentiment, but it illustrates another weakness in the popularist approach: it leads politicians toward public policy that divides the public, which weakens support for the policy itself. Social Security and Medicare are popular because they are universal. If they were being considered today, I suspect some people would argue against them from a 'popularist' perspective.
To be sure, means testing and other non-universal policies often poll well. "Should we give free stuff to rich people?" is a question that seems to answer itself. In practice, however, it is often inhumane, unjust, and counterproductive. Matt Bruenig's work on the child tax credit shows that it is unnecessary complex and difficult to apply for the benefit. As a result, 18 percent of the children who qualify for the credit are not receiving it.
But popularism isn't that popular. As Bruenig also notes, David Shor misunderstands or misrepresents the relative popularity of a universal vs. means-tested tax credit. The means-tested version only scored four points higher than the universal one. And sharper means testing of the kind Shor proposes would, in Bruenig's words, "massively increase overpayment problems" as well as bureaucratic drag, "which would then make the program less popular."
This is where it becomes important to read polls in context. First, four points is only slightly larger than the margin of error. Secondly, and more importantly, if Democrats enact a child tax credit that is complicated, time-consuming, and financially risky, it will quickly become unpopular. The small, momentary (and, I believe, mythical) boost they might get from passing a means-tested program now would cost them dearly later.
Shor rightly notes the deep educational and cultural divides between the Republican and Democratic parties. As others (most notably Thomas Frank) have pointed out, the Democrats have gone from being the party of the working class to the party of educated elites. Means testing will make that worse. After all, it's "educated elites" and not blue-collar workers who do the testing, and who are more likely to complete them successfully.
The problem with Build Back Better isn't that its vision is too grand. On the contrary. Millions of people in this country are facing eviction. Millions more--with and without health insurance--can't afford medical care. People are dying, going hungry, and doing without shelter.
To be sure, there are programs that require means testing, like antipoverty programs. If Joe Manchin is determined to focus on "needs-based" programs, there are plenty of proposals in Congress that fit the mold, from eviction moratoriums to rental assistance to canceling utilities debt and more. Or, he could target the 47 million Americans struggling with student debt.
These needs-based programs might not fit the 'popularist' mold. But if Democrats don't act quickly and boldly, well beyond the provisions of Build Back Better, the resulting tsunami of suffering could sweep a demagogue like Trump (maybe Trump himself) into power in 2024.
Shor says that "you want to be five years ahead of history, not 15 years." Unfortunately, he seems to be ten years behind it. We are on the brink of catastrophe, at a time when only bold ideas and action can save us. Popularism, however well-intentioned, feels less like fresh thinking and more like a road back to the stale centrism of the past.
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. |
Richard (RJ) Eskow is a journalist who has written for a number of major publications. His weekly program, The Zero Hour, can be found on cable television, radio, Spotify, and podcast media.
It's 'popularism' week in the commentariat, as pundits across the ideological spectrum discuss recent remarks by pollster David Shor. This problematic and imprecise term reflects a way of thinking about politics that is poised to reshape the Build Back Better debate, and other debates yet to come. That's potentially disastrous.
Shor has written and spoken extensively on the need for Democrats to back away from talking about unpopular ideas and listen more to pollsters like... well, like David Shor. Ezra Klein covered his ideas well, but the headline for his piece gets it wrong. Shor isn't "telling Democrats what they don't want to hear." Shor's words are music to the ears of Democratic centrists.
Shor seems like an engaging, bright guy. His 'popularism' concept is interesting, if not very well defined, and his framework makes the most sense when he's talking about phrases that poll badly in core Democratic demographics. "Defund the police" performs poorly among communities of color, for example, and it's easy to see why it's a problem.
The problem arises, as it always does, when Democrats craft tomorrow's policies on today's poll readings. That's like prescribing medication today based on what your temperature was last week. Poll results are transient and reflect the biases of the pollster. Most importantly, they fail to consider the political impact of policies that sound convincing when asked by a pollster, but which are infuriating and unfair once they're enacted.
Shor emphasized his own leftism in interviews and, to be fair, he doesn't say politicians should shape their policies on what polls well. He says they should talk about things that poll well and play down the things that don't. In the real world, however, there's not much difference between the two. You can't pass a law in Congress without talking about it. Even if you try, if it's unpopular you can bet your opponents will.
The problem with Build Back Better isn't that its vision is too grand. On the contrary. Millions of people in this country are facing eviction. Millions more--with and without health insurance--can't afford medical care. People are dying, going hungry, and doing without shelter.
In the real world, whether intentionally or not, 'popularism' becomes an argument for passing only policies that poll well. When seen in that light, 'popularism' sounds less like a canny electoral strategy and more like a post-millennial repackaging of a previous generation's centrism. As the meme goes, "How do you do, fellow kids?"
The Democratic debate over cuts to Biden's reconciliation bill is already starting to reflect something like 'popularism.' Sen. Joe Manchin's rhetorical attack--that it's "basically changing our whole society to an entitlement mentality"--reflects the poll-driven Democratic rhetoric of the past three decades. So does his demand that benefits be "needs-based with means-testing guardrails."
That didn't come out of nowhere. As Jamelle Bouie writes, "there was a point--in the very recent past--when (Manchin's) views were the dominant ideological position within the Democratic Party, both a consequence of and a driving force in the neoliberal transformation of the United States." That reflects another problem with 'popularism': the polls may change, but the thinking doesn't always change with it.
Shor also makes some important points. He recently pointed out that "If you were rank ordering purely on popularity then pharma drug negotiation, anti-usury laws, and adding dental/vision to Medicare would be at the top." He went on to say that "expanding Social Security and wealth taxes ... also do very well."
Why, then, has popularism already come to be defined as some sort of contrarian, bitter pill Democrats must be forced to swallow? A lot of that has to do with Shor's own presentation of the data. New York Times reporter Nate Cohn points out Shor's ideal campaign looks a lot like Obama's 2012 run. But, as Cohn points out, "The last ten years have had a huge effect on the partisan allegiance of millions of white working-class voters ... They don't default to Democrats anymore. Many are now just Republicans."
What Cohn doesn't say, but I will, is that those defections are due in part to Obama's policies.
When I wrote about the history and ideology of means testing for The American Prospect in 2019, the Democratic Party was in the throes of hashing out broad issues of inclusion and universality in its approach to public policy. The candidates most closely associated with the universalist approach, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, lost. But the ideology itself made enormous gains, aided in part by the pandemic's role in exposing holes in the social safety net. Now, the Democratic holdouts in the House and Senate are reigniting that debate. As the Build Back Better debate rages on, there will be a strong temptation to fall back on its old posture.
The divisive nature of the 'popularist' approach has led to some surprising outcomes. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a New Jersey Democrat whose district went for Trump in 2016, led the House effort to expand access to child care benefits. She didn't do it because she's a social democrat (hardly!), but because the divisive nature of the popularist strategy left too many of her middle-class constituents out. "I will not let another federal program pay less to New Jersey taxpayers than it does to all other Americans," Sherrill said.
That may not be a noble sentiment, but it illustrates another weakness in the popularist approach: it leads politicians toward public policy that divides the public, which weakens support for the policy itself. Social Security and Medicare are popular because they are universal. If they were being considered today, I suspect some people would argue against them from a 'popularist' perspective.
To be sure, means testing and other non-universal policies often poll well. "Should we give free stuff to rich people?" is a question that seems to answer itself. In practice, however, it is often inhumane, unjust, and counterproductive. Matt Bruenig's work on the child tax credit shows that it is unnecessary complex and difficult to apply for the benefit. As a result, 18 percent of the children who qualify for the credit are not receiving it.
But popularism isn't that popular. As Bruenig also notes, David Shor misunderstands or misrepresents the relative popularity of a universal vs. means-tested tax credit. The means-tested version only scored four points higher than the universal one. And sharper means testing of the kind Shor proposes would, in Bruenig's words, "massively increase overpayment problems" as well as bureaucratic drag, "which would then make the program less popular."
This is where it becomes important to read polls in context. First, four points is only slightly larger than the margin of error. Secondly, and more importantly, if Democrats enact a child tax credit that is complicated, time-consuming, and financially risky, it will quickly become unpopular. The small, momentary (and, I believe, mythical) boost they might get from passing a means-tested program now would cost them dearly later.
Shor rightly notes the deep educational and cultural divides between the Republican and Democratic parties. As others (most notably Thomas Frank) have pointed out, the Democrats have gone from being the party of the working class to the party of educated elites. Means testing will make that worse. After all, it's "educated elites" and not blue-collar workers who do the testing, and who are more likely to complete them successfully.
The problem with Build Back Better isn't that its vision is too grand. On the contrary. Millions of people in this country are facing eviction. Millions more--with and without health insurance--can't afford medical care. People are dying, going hungry, and doing without shelter.
To be sure, there are programs that require means testing, like antipoverty programs. If Joe Manchin is determined to focus on "needs-based" programs, there are plenty of proposals in Congress that fit the mold, from eviction moratoriums to rental assistance to canceling utilities debt and more. Or, he could target the 47 million Americans struggling with student debt.
These needs-based programs might not fit the 'popularist' mold. But if Democrats don't act quickly and boldly, well beyond the provisions of Build Back Better, the resulting tsunami of suffering could sweep a demagogue like Trump (maybe Trump himself) into power in 2024.
Shor says that "you want to be five years ahead of history, not 15 years." Unfortunately, he seems to be ten years behind it. We are on the brink of catastrophe, at a time when only bold ideas and action can save us. Popularism, however well-intentioned, feels less like fresh thinking and more like a road back to the stale centrism of the past.
Richard (RJ) Eskow is a journalist who has written for a number of major publications. His weekly program, The Zero Hour, can be found on cable television, radio, Spotify, and podcast media.
It's 'popularism' week in the commentariat, as pundits across the ideological spectrum discuss recent remarks by pollster David Shor. This problematic and imprecise term reflects a way of thinking about politics that is poised to reshape the Build Back Better debate, and other debates yet to come. That's potentially disastrous.
Shor has written and spoken extensively on the need for Democrats to back away from talking about unpopular ideas and listen more to pollsters like... well, like David Shor. Ezra Klein covered his ideas well, but the headline for his piece gets it wrong. Shor isn't "telling Democrats what they don't want to hear." Shor's words are music to the ears of Democratic centrists.
Shor seems like an engaging, bright guy. His 'popularism' concept is interesting, if not very well defined, and his framework makes the most sense when he's talking about phrases that poll badly in core Democratic demographics. "Defund the police" performs poorly among communities of color, for example, and it's easy to see why it's a problem.
The problem arises, as it always does, when Democrats craft tomorrow's policies on today's poll readings. That's like prescribing medication today based on what your temperature was last week. Poll results are transient and reflect the biases of the pollster. Most importantly, they fail to consider the political impact of policies that sound convincing when asked by a pollster, but which are infuriating and unfair once they're enacted.
Shor emphasized his own leftism in interviews and, to be fair, he doesn't say politicians should shape their policies on what polls well. He says they should talk about things that poll well and play down the things that don't. In the real world, however, there's not much difference between the two. You can't pass a law in Congress without talking about it. Even if you try, if it's unpopular you can bet your opponents will.
The problem with Build Back Better isn't that its vision is too grand. On the contrary. Millions of people in this country are facing eviction. Millions more--with and without health insurance--can't afford medical care. People are dying, going hungry, and doing without shelter.
In the real world, whether intentionally or not, 'popularism' becomes an argument for passing only policies that poll well. When seen in that light, 'popularism' sounds less like a canny electoral strategy and more like a post-millennial repackaging of a previous generation's centrism. As the meme goes, "How do you do, fellow kids?"
The Democratic debate over cuts to Biden's reconciliation bill is already starting to reflect something like 'popularism.' Sen. Joe Manchin's rhetorical attack--that it's "basically changing our whole society to an entitlement mentality"--reflects the poll-driven Democratic rhetoric of the past three decades. So does his demand that benefits be "needs-based with means-testing guardrails."
That didn't come out of nowhere. As Jamelle Bouie writes, "there was a point--in the very recent past--when (Manchin's) views were the dominant ideological position within the Democratic Party, both a consequence of and a driving force in the neoliberal transformation of the United States." That reflects another problem with 'popularism': the polls may change, but the thinking doesn't always change with it.
Shor also makes some important points. He recently pointed out that "If you were rank ordering purely on popularity then pharma drug negotiation, anti-usury laws, and adding dental/vision to Medicare would be at the top." He went on to say that "expanding Social Security and wealth taxes ... also do very well."
Why, then, has popularism already come to be defined as some sort of contrarian, bitter pill Democrats must be forced to swallow? A lot of that has to do with Shor's own presentation of the data. New York Times reporter Nate Cohn points out Shor's ideal campaign looks a lot like Obama's 2012 run. But, as Cohn points out, "The last ten years have had a huge effect on the partisan allegiance of millions of white working-class voters ... They don't default to Democrats anymore. Many are now just Republicans."
What Cohn doesn't say, but I will, is that those defections are due in part to Obama's policies.
When I wrote about the history and ideology of means testing for The American Prospect in 2019, the Democratic Party was in the throes of hashing out broad issues of inclusion and universality in its approach to public policy. The candidates most closely associated with the universalist approach, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, lost. But the ideology itself made enormous gains, aided in part by the pandemic's role in exposing holes in the social safety net. Now, the Democratic holdouts in the House and Senate are reigniting that debate. As the Build Back Better debate rages on, there will be a strong temptation to fall back on its old posture.
The divisive nature of the 'popularist' approach has led to some surprising outcomes. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a New Jersey Democrat whose district went for Trump in 2016, led the House effort to expand access to child care benefits. She didn't do it because she's a social democrat (hardly!), but because the divisive nature of the popularist strategy left too many of her middle-class constituents out. "I will not let another federal program pay less to New Jersey taxpayers than it does to all other Americans," Sherrill said.
That may not be a noble sentiment, but it illustrates another weakness in the popularist approach: it leads politicians toward public policy that divides the public, which weakens support for the policy itself. Social Security and Medicare are popular because they are universal. If they were being considered today, I suspect some people would argue against them from a 'popularist' perspective.
To be sure, means testing and other non-universal policies often poll well. "Should we give free stuff to rich people?" is a question that seems to answer itself. In practice, however, it is often inhumane, unjust, and counterproductive. Matt Bruenig's work on the child tax credit shows that it is unnecessary complex and difficult to apply for the benefit. As a result, 18 percent of the children who qualify for the credit are not receiving it.
But popularism isn't that popular. As Bruenig also notes, David Shor misunderstands or misrepresents the relative popularity of a universal vs. means-tested tax credit. The means-tested version only scored four points higher than the universal one. And sharper means testing of the kind Shor proposes would, in Bruenig's words, "massively increase overpayment problems" as well as bureaucratic drag, "which would then make the program less popular."
This is where it becomes important to read polls in context. First, four points is only slightly larger than the margin of error. Secondly, and more importantly, if Democrats enact a child tax credit that is complicated, time-consuming, and financially risky, it will quickly become unpopular. The small, momentary (and, I believe, mythical) boost they might get from passing a means-tested program now would cost them dearly later.
Shor rightly notes the deep educational and cultural divides between the Republican and Democratic parties. As others (most notably Thomas Frank) have pointed out, the Democrats have gone from being the party of the working class to the party of educated elites. Means testing will make that worse. After all, it's "educated elites" and not blue-collar workers who do the testing, and who are more likely to complete them successfully.
The problem with Build Back Better isn't that its vision is too grand. On the contrary. Millions of people in this country are facing eviction. Millions more--with and without health insurance--can't afford medical care. People are dying, going hungry, and doing without shelter.
To be sure, there are programs that require means testing, like antipoverty programs. If Joe Manchin is determined to focus on "needs-based" programs, there are plenty of proposals in Congress that fit the mold, from eviction moratoriums to rental assistance to canceling utilities debt and more. Or, he could target the 47 million Americans struggling with student debt.
These needs-based programs might not fit the 'popularist' mold. But if Democrats don't act quickly and boldly, well beyond the provisions of Build Back Better, the resulting tsunami of suffering could sweep a demagogue like Trump (maybe Trump himself) into power in 2024.
Shor says that "you want to be five years ahead of history, not 15 years." Unfortunately, he seems to be ten years behind it. We are on the brink of catastrophe, at a time when only bold ideas and action can save us. Popularism, however well-intentioned, feels less like fresh thinking and more like a road back to the stale centrism of the past.
The new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator joins "a team of snake oil salesmen and anti-science flunkies that have already shown disdain for the American people and their health," said one critic.
Echoing a party-line vote by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last week, the chamber's Republicans on Thursday confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, former televison host Dr. Mehmet Oz.
Since Trump nominated Oz—who previously ran as a Republican for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania—a wide range of critics have argued that the celebrity cardiothoracic surgeon "is profoundly unqualified to lead any part of our healthcare system, let alone an agency as important as CMS," in the words of Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
After Thursday's 53-45 vote to confirm Oz, Weissman declared that "Republicans in the Senate continued to just be a rubber stamp for a dangerous agenda that threatens to turn back the clock on healthcare in America."
Weissman warned that "in addition to having significant conflicts of interest, Oz is now poised to help enact the Trump administration's dangerous agenda, which seeks to strip crucial healthcare services through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act from hundreds of millions of Americans and to use that money to give tax breaks to billionaires."
"As he showed in his confirmation hearing, Oz will also seek to further privatize Medicare, increasing the risk that seniors will receive inferior care and further threatening the long-term health of the Medicare program. We already know that privatized Medicare costs taxpayers nearly $100 billion annually in excess costs," he continued, referring to Medicare Advantage plans.
CMS is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, now led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who, like Oz, came under fire for his record of dubious claims during the confirmation process. Weissman said that "Dr. Oz is joining a team of snake oil salesmen and anti-science flunkies that have already shown disdain for the American people and their health. This is yet another dark day for healthcare in America under Trump."
In the middle of Trump's tariff disaster, the Senate is voting to confirm quack grifter Dr. Oz to lead the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services.
[image or embed]
— Jen Bendery (@jbendery.bsky.social) April 3, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Oz's confirmation came a day after Trump announced globally disruptive tariffs and Senate Republicans unveiled a budget plan that would give the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the expense of federal food assistance and healthcare programs.
"While Dr. Oz would rather play coy, this is no hypothetical. Harmful cuts to Medicaid or Medicare are unavoidable in the Trump-Republican budget plan that prioritizes another giant tax break for the president's billionaire and corporate donors," Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said ahead of the vote.
"None of Dr. Oz's 'miracle' cures that he's peddled over the years will help seniors when their fundamental health security is ripped away to make the rich richer," Carrk continued. "And while privatizing Medicare may enrich Dr. Oz's family and big insurance friends, it will cost taxpayers far more and leave millions of patients vulnerable to denials of care and higher out-of-pocket costs."
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), was similarly critical, saying after the vote that "at a time when our population is growing older and the need for access to home care, nursing homes, affordable prescription drugs, and quality medical care has never been greater, Americans deserve better than a snake oil salesman leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."
"Dr. Mehmet Oz has been shilling pseudoscience to line his own pockets. He can't be trusted to defend Medicare and Medicaid from billionaires who want to dismantle and privatize the foundation of affordable healthcare in this country," the union leader added. "AFSCME members—including nurses, home care and childcare providers, social workers and more—will be watching and fighting back against any effort to weaken Medicare and Medicaid. The 147 million seniors, children, Americans with disabilities, and low-income workers who rely on these programs for affordable access to healthcare deserve nothing less."
"While your kids are getting ready for school, kids in Gaza were once against just massacred in one," said one observer.
Israeli airstrikes targeted at least three more school shelters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing dozens of Palestinians and wounding scores of others on a day when local officials said that more than 100 people were slain by occupation forces.
Gaza's Government Media Office said that at least 29 people—including 14 children and five women—were killed and over 100 others were wounded when at least four missiles struck the Dar al-Arqam school complex in the Tuffah neighborhood of eastern Gaza City, where hundreds of Palestinians were sheltering after being forcibly displaced from other parts of the embattled coastal enclave by Israel's 535-day assault.
Al Jazeera reported that "when terrified men, women, and children fled from one school building to another, the bombs followed them," and "when bystanders rushed to help, they too became victims."
A first responder from the Palestine Red Crescent Society—which is reeling from this week's discovery of a mass grave containing the bodies of eight of its members, some of whom had allegedly been bound and executed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops—told Al Jazeera that "we were absolutely shocked by the scale of this massacre," whose victims were "mostly women and children."
Warning: Video contains graphic images of death.
Horrifying scenes following the Dar Al-Arqam School Massacre!#Gaza pic.twitter.com/xOvuq3Zztx
— Dr. Zain Al-Abbadi (@ZainAbbadi11) April 3, 2025
An official from Gaza's Civil Defense, five of whose members were also found in the mass grave on Sunday, said: "What's going on here is a wake-up call to the entire world. This war and these massacres against women and children must stop immediately. The children are being killed in cold blood here in Gaza. Our teams cannot perform their duties properly.
Gaza Health Ministry spokesperson Zaher al-Wahidi said that the death toll was likely to rise, as some survivors were critically injured.
Dozens of victims were reportedly trapped beneath rubble of Thursday's airstrikes, but they could not be rescued due to a lack of equipment.
The IDF claimed that "key Hamas terrorists" were targeted in a strike on what it called a "command center." Israeli officials routinely claim—often with little or no evidence—that Palestinian civilians it kills are members of Hamas or other militant resistance groups.
Israel also bombed the nearby al-Sabah school, killing four people, as well as the Fahd School in Gaza City, with three reported fatalities.
Some of the deadliest bombings in the war have been carried out against refugees sheltering in schools, many of them run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—at least 280 of whose staff members have been killed by Israeli forces during the war.
The United Nations Children's Fund has called Gaza "the world's most dangerous place to be a child." Last year, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time added Israel to his so-called "List of Shame" of countries that kill and injure children during wars and other armed conflicts. More than 17,500 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Thursday's school bombings sparked worldwide outrage and calls to hold Israel accountable.
"While your kids are getting ready for school, kids in Gaza were once against just massacred in one," Australian journalist, activist, and progressive politician Sophie McNeill wrote on social media. "We must sanction Israel now!"
There were other IDF massacres on Thursday, with local officials reporting that more than 100 people were killed in Israeli attacks since dawn. Al-Wahidi said more than 30 people were killed in strikes on homes in Gaza City's Shejaya neighborhood, citing records at al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital in Gaza.
Al Jazeera reported that al-Ahli's emergency room "is overwhelmed with casualties and, as is so often the case over the past 18 months, the victims are Gaza's youngest."
Thursday's intensified airstrikes came as Israeli forces pushed into the ruins of the southern city of Rafah. Local and international media reported that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families fled from the area, which Israel said it will seize as part of a new "security zone."
Human rights defenders around the world condemned U.S.-backed killing and mass displacement, with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—whose bid to block some sAmerican arms sales to Israel was rejected by the Senate on Thursday—saying: "There is a name and a term for forcibly expelling people from where they live. It is called ethnic cleansing. It is illegal. It is a war crime."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are fugitives from the International Criminal Court, which last year issued arrest warrants for the pair over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
According to Gaza officials, Israeli forces have killed or wounded at least 175,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including upward of 14,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Almost everyone in Gaza has been forcibly displaced at least once, and the "complete siege" imposed by Israel has fueled widespread and sometimes deadly starvation and disease.
"Working-class candidate v. billionaire political race. I'm here for it," wrote one longtime progressive strategist.
Dan Osborn, an Independent U.S. Senate candidate who struck a chord with working-class voters in Nebraska and came within striking distance of unseating his Republican opponent last year, announced Thursday that he's considering another run, this time challenging GOP Sen. Pete GOP Ricketts, who is up for election in 2026.
"We could replace a billionaire with a mechanic," Osborn wrote in a thread on X on Thursday. "I'll run against Pete Ricketts—if the support is there." Osborn said that he's launching an exploratory committee and would run as Independent, as he did in 2024.
Ricketts has served as a senator since 2023, and prior to that was the governor of Nebraska from 2015-2023. By one estimate, Ricketts has a net worth of over $165 million—though the wealth of his father, brokerage founder Joe Ricketts, and family is estimated to be worth $4.1 billion, according to Forbes.
A mechanic and unionist who helped lead a strike against Kellogg's cereal company, Osborn lost to Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) by less than 7 points in November 2024 in what became an unexpectedly close race.
Although he didn't win, he overperformed the national Democratic ticket by a higher percentage than other candidates running against Republicans in competitive Senate races, according to The Nation.
"Billionaires have bought up the country and are carving it up day by day," said Osborn Thursday. "The economy they've built is good for them, bad for us. Good for huge multinationals and multibillionaires. Bad for workers. Bad for small businesses, bad for family farmers. Bad for anyone who wants Social Security to survive. Bad for your PAYCHECK."
Osborn cast the potential race as between "someone who's spent his life working for a living and will never take an order from a corporation or a party boss" and "someone who's never worked a day in his life and is entirely beholden to corporations and party."
"We could take on this illness, the billionaire class, directly," he said.
Osborn, who campaigned on issues like Right to Repair and lowering taxes on overtime payments, earned praise from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who told The Nation in late November that Osborn's bid should be viewed as a "model for the future."
Osborn "took on both political parties. He took on the corporate world. He ran as a strong trade unionist. Without party support, getting heavily outspent, he got through to working-class people all over Nebraska. It was an extraordinary campaign," Sanders said.
In reaction to the news that Osborn is exploring a second run, a former Sanders campaign manager and longtime progressive Democratic strategist Faiz Shakir, wrote: "working-class candidate v. billionaire political race. I'm here for it."