Congress wastes an enormous amount of time pretending that improving people’s lives requires complex policy debate, massive levels of new spending, and fights over how to pay for it.

But there is one simple solution Congress could implement that would improve the lives of tens of millions, reduce poverty, cut government spending, increase federal revenue, strengthen Social Security, and boost the economy. Not only would this policy cost the government nothing, but it would reduce spending by over $100 billion each year.

That solution is raising the federal minimum wage.

A 2026 UC Berkeley study by Michael Reich examined what would happen if the federal minimum wage were raised to $20 an hour by 2030. The results are impressive:

• Nearly 40 million workers would receive raises

• The average affected worker would receive an additional ~$8,000 per year

• Federal revenue would increase by $69 billion, with $35 billion going to Social Security

• Federal spending would be reduced by $108 billion because fewer workers would need to rely on assistance programs

• Combined, that creates a $177 billion improvement to the federal budget

• The effects on inflation and employment would be negligible

The reason raising the minimum wage has so many benefits is simple: when companies pay workers too little to afford food, rent, healthcare, childcare, and the rest of life’s expenses, the government has to step in to prevent those workers from needless suffering. Taxpayers end up subsidizing the employer through federal assistance programs for its workers.

Amazon is one of the clearest examples. A University of Illinois Chicago report found that roughly half of Amazon’s frontline warehouse workers struggled with food and housing insecurity or paying their bills. One-third rely on public assistance. Amazon had profits of roughly $80 billion last year. It also spent over $25 million on “union-avoidance” to ensure its workers couldn’t collectively bargain for better conditions and fair pay.

It should not fall on the shoulders of taxpayers to ensure that people working for the richest companies in the world have enough money to put food on the table. Those companies should be required to pay a proper wage. Minimum wage laws that enact living wages address this problem.

Despite the constant fearmongering about how higher minimum wages will destroy jobs, crush small businesses, and send prices soaring, that doesn’t happen. California recently raised the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 an hour, a 20% increase from the previous minimum wage. Jobs weren’t lost, and prices increased 1.5%, or six cents on a $4 menu item. Far from any of the catastrophes we were told would happen. This has been proven time and again through numerous studies of different wage increases.

Higher wages benefit businesses, too. They reduce turnover, which saves companies money on hiring and training. Worker productivity often increases. And those workers spend more money at businesses.

America even had a federal minimum wage that was a living wage in 1968. The middle class was at its strongest. GDP growth was high. Unemployment was low. The national debt was drastically lower. And people still became rich. The economy didn’t collapse because of better pay. It continued to improve.

Higher wages are more than a solution to improve workers’ lives. They are a great policy for the entire nation.

Today, the federal minimum wage is a poverty wage. This is the choice Congress made by letting it erode away for decades without addressing the problem. Finally, some members of Congress are pushing forward legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour over several years.

This would be an easy economic win that has far-reaching positive effects. It benefits workers, reduces poverty, improves the budget, and strengthens Social Security. It improves the economy.

The only reason not to do it is to keep caving to corporate greed.

Another person was killed. Another tale was told by the Department of Homeland Security that painted the victim as the aggressor. And, as with case after case brought during this crackdown, the story began to fall apart as soon as the evidence was reviewed.

Two Americans have been killed by immigration officers, both protestors, neither a threat to the officers or anyone else. Eight others have been shot to death. More than 50 have died while in ICE custody. And at least 79 children have been harmed by tear gas and pepper spray deployed by immigration officers, likely a substantial undercount. Communities have been terrorized. People brutalized. Work sites, private homes, streets, parks, and courthouse halls have been treated like combat zones.

This defies the principles America claims to stand for. The problem is not that the government is enforcing immigration laws. It is that immigration enforcement has become a masked, militarized force that goes anywhere it wants, does whatever it wants to whoever it wants, and then expects the public to blindly accept the story it creates.

Across multiple cities, arrests and prosecutions that portrayed citizens as threats have resulted in no charges, dismissals, reductions, or acquittals. Nationwide, of the first 100 people initially charged with felony assault on federal agents, more than half had their charges reduced or dismissed, and every case that reached a jury ended in acquittal.

The Department of Homeland Security and ICE were formed in the aftermath of 9/11, when America was on high alert. The government began seeing terrorists lurking in every shadow, and society willingly handed over its rights to feel more secure.

Once rights are traded away, they are difficult to get back. We see it with surveillance. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was sold as a tool for monitoring foreign threats overseas, but Americans’ communications are swept into the system and searched later without the kind of warrant the Fourth Amendment requires. The abuses have been widespread. Protesters, journalists, political donors, members of Congress, and others have been swept into improper searches. NSA employees were even caught using these surveillance tools to spy on spouses, former lovers, and romantic interests.

That is what happens when government power grows too large, and oversight becomes too weak. The power doesn’t stay neatly inside the original promise. There is always some threat. There is always some excuse. There is always some reason to give the government more power over us. After all, they say, only they can protect us.

That logic is now being used for ICE. We are told that immigrants are such an extreme danger that we need masked agents in tactical gear raiding workplaces, chasing people through neighborhoods, and breaking into homes. We are told this is necessary for safety.

The problem with the safety argument is that violent crime and homicides have been plummeting for years, including during the so-called “invasion” of the southern border and before ICE was militarized to this degree. The murder rate is the lowest ever recorded since the national database was created in 1960, and is likely the lowest in over a century. There is no crime wave, no grave threat.

And yet, there has been a massive surge in funding for immigration enforcement. Congress already injected $170 billion into immigration enforcement last year, and the most recent law adds nearly $70 billion more through 2029, bringing the multi-year total to roughly $240 billion. Much of that money is available immediately, giving the administration enormous flexibility to front-load enforcement spending. As a single-year budget, it is larger than the military spending of every nation except two, one of which is our own.

This is not about safety. It is about power.

It is about people in government testing how far they can go. How large a militarized force can be deployed on US soil? How aggressively can it be used? How many rights can be eroded or trampled flat?

This isn’t only dangerous to public safety. It also destroys the bond between the government and the people. Every abuse without accountability erodes trust. That distrust does not stay confined to ICE. It spreads across the government. People begin to understand that the official account is often just a story. They realize the government will protect its agents before it protects their rights. They begin to see law enforcement not as part of the community, but as a force imposed upon them.

A free country cannot function properly when masked agents can detain anyone without clear identification or just cause, when families are afraid to go to court, when children are harmed by chemical weapons, when journalists and protesters are treated as enemies, and when official claims collapse after people have already been jailed, injured, deported, or killed.

That is why ICE should be abolished.

Abolishing ICE does not mean abolishing immigration law. It means taking immigration enforcement out of the hands of a militarized agency and rebuilding it as a civil system. A replacement agency should focus on case management, screenings, court scheduling, notices, compliance support, and removal orders after due process. Local law enforcement should continue handling criminal cases regardless of immigration status, with convictions reported to the immigration system. CBP should remain limited to the border and ports of entry. Apprehensions within the country should be narrow, accountable, and focused on individuals who have received final removal orders after due process and have refused to comply. Those removals must be performed carefully, with the safety of the community as the top priority, not as a rush to fulfill government quotas, no matter who gets hurt.

This issue should not be as partisan as it has become. Freedom from government overreach used to be a principle Americans across the political spectrum valued. The right to due process. The right to protest. The right to be secure in your home. The right not to be treated as an enemy by your own government.

America was born from rebellion against government oppression. Liberty was not supposed to be a slogan we put on flags while accepting masked agents in our streets. It is the lifeblood of the nation, the force that keeps government power limited and ordinary people protected.

It is time to find that passion once again.

The 250th anniversary of our nation's founding should be a monumental occasion.

It should have been a time of healing for a nation that's become deeply divided by its differences with celebrations from coast to coast. Family fairs. Dazzling spectacles. Inspiring events. And patriotic speeches.

We could have recalled our history, the struggles our country overcame, and the progress that was made.

The fight for independence.
The fight to hold the union together.
The fight against tyranny.
The depression and the Great Recession.
The Civil Rights Movement and women's suffrage.
The Industrial Revolution and the race to the moon.

There should be pride in the fact that not only did America bring democracy to the modern world, but it also brought the lightbulb, telegraph, and telephone.

We ushered in the information age with the microchip, personal computer, internet, and GPS. And dazzled the world with blockbuster motion pictures.

All of it is a reminder that anything is possible when we challenge ourselves to do better. When we dare to dream big.

That America’s 250th birthday did not bring about any of those things should be a sobering realization that we've found ourselves on the wrong track.

We've become complacent. We switched from fighting injustice to fighting each other. We stopped innovating, evolving, and maturing, choosing instead to cling to the remnants of our past, afraid to discover what lies ahead.

We can do better, and we must. We must challenge ourselves to move beyond the status quo that has failed too many while funneling power and wealth into the hands of only the select few.

Our Founding Fathers declared that all men were created equal. That life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights.

As technology advances faster than ever before, let us renew our focus on humanity. Let us strive to be a nation that guarantees everyone the opportunity to get ahead while leaving no one behind.

We are still a young nation. America’s best days are not behind us. They have yet to come. It is up to us to usher in the next era of American greatness, and it begins at the ballot box.

Last November, Zohran Mamdani won the election to become New York City’s next mayor. The fearmongering was immediate. New York City had elected a Democratic Socialist. Societal collapse was imminent.

Since then, not only has nothing catastrophic happened to the city, but Mamdani has been delivering on his campaign promises, with roughly three-quarters of New York City residents polled saying he is a hard worker.

Mamdani used his success and name recognition to support three Democratic Socialists running for Congress. All three won their primaries. The spin machine went into high gear. “Socialists! Marxists! Communists!” The last one may be the most incorrectly used term in American politics.

Half the time, “communist” is used for someone who supports healthcare that doesn’t bankrupt you. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all called communists by their opponents. None were, and none of the winners of New York’s democratic primaries are either.

The fear wasn’t just from Republicans. Some moderate and centrist Democrats also raised the alarm. Fifteen Democrats — 10 members of Congress and 5 candidates — signed onto a Promise to America pledge to stand against extremism, including both fascism and socialism.

What didn’t we hear among all of this panic? Any debate about the actual proposals of the candidates. That is because many of the positions are not extreme at all. They are mainstream in other wealthy capitalist democracies.

The midterms are not an election about whether America should abandon capitalism and become a socialist nation. It is about the struggles millions of hard-working Americans face every day as prices continue to rise, wages fall further behind, healthcare costs keep rising, housing costs are out of control, and Congress does nothing about it.

People are fed up with the establishment.

That is the part that too many politicians still do not understand. Voters are not sitting around reading Oscar Wilde or Upton Sinclair and debating the merits of socialism. They are looking at rent, groceries, gas, medical bills, childcare, and wages that can’t keep up with it all. They are asking why the wealthiest country on earth keeps telling them to work harder and retire later while the rich continue to collect an ever-increasing share of wealth.

In American politics, the word “socialist” is used as a scare word for anything that reduces corporate power or expands public benefits. But most of the policies being discussed are not about state ownership of the economy. They are normal social-democratic policies.

• Ensuring that every resident has healthcare and that receiving medical care does not cause financial hardship.

• Pushing for better wages that support a decent standard of living.

• Providing early childhood education, such as universal Pre-K, and affordable childcare.

• Restoring food assistance benefits that were cut. Current accounting, based on only a partial list of states, shows that roughly 700,000 children have already lost SNAP benefits, with estimates suggesting the total could reach 1 million or more.

• Worker rights, including collective bargaining, paid sick days, paid parental leave, and paid vacation days.

• Tenant rights, such as eliminating junk fees, holding landlords accountable for repairs, and implementing rent control during a time of unaffordable housing.

These are the positions we are supposed to be terrified of. That is not communism. It is also not socialism. It is a government working to ensure people can live decent lives. These are policies used in other major capitalist democracies and are often described as “the rich are still rich, but no one is poor.”

There is strong support for these policies in the US, too, which makes them so hard to debate. And that is where the fearmongering comes in.

Instead of arguing why private insurance companies should be allowed to charge outrageous amounts of money while denying legitimate claims, it is easier to point and shout “socialist!”

Instead of arguing why full-time workers should not earn enough to live, it is easier to call a living wage radical.

Instead of arguing why the richest country in the world cannot feed children, provide affordable childcare, or guarantee paid leave, it is easier to pretend every public benefit is a slippery slope to the Soviet Union.

But the word “socialist” does not scare people the way it used to. That is why the panic so quickly escalates to “communist,” as if we are back in the McCarthy era and every demand for a better life is a plot to overthrow the country.

The real problem for the establishment is that this name-calling has stopped working.

The Democratic Party currently has a lower approval rating than the Republican Party, even though Republicans are in power as everything worsens. Many voters do not see congressional Democrats fighting hard enough against Trump and MAGA, and they do not see a concrete enough plan to move the nation forward. The main message has been “Elect us because Trump is bad.” Trump is bad, but people also want solutions.

Democrats in Congress as a whole have a 20% approval rating. Among Democratic voters, their approval is only 41%, according to Quinnipiac polling.

Mamdani has a 48% approval rating among all New York City adults and a 63% approval rating among New York City Democrats, according to Marist polling. Those numbers explain why the establishment is nervous.

There are other Democrats and Democratic-aligned politicians with polling numbers similar to, or even better than, Mamdani’s: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC was previously endorsed by the DSA, but the national organization withdrew its endorsement in 2024 over disagreements related to Israel and Palestine. Bernie Sanders is not a DSA member, but he is a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist. Elizabeth Warren is a progressive Democrat. The labels are not what drives their popularity. The issues and the fight do.

These are politicians associated with concrete economic battles: taxing the rich, lowering healthcare costs, protecting workers, taking on corporate power, reducing student debt, defending Social Security and Medicare, and making government work for normal people instead of billionaires.

That is what voters are responding to.

They are not asking for America to abandon capitalism. They are asking why capitalism in America has become so brutal for working people while billionaires and corporations keep getting more power, more tax breaks, and more loopholes, with endless excuses created to defend it.

Democrats will win the House majority in November. There is also a chance they could take the Senate. When they do, America will still have freedom, democracy, and capitalism. The only real change will be that hardworking Americans will struggle less and have greater opportunities. Which is exactly what the majority of Americans want.

It is not capitalism versus socialism. It is whether the government will finally do something about the problems people live with every day. And that should not be scary at all.

Our peer nations have lower costs, better broad health outcomes, higher rates of insurance coverage, and often better access to routine, preventive, and time-sensitive care.

Universal healthcare is the better approach, and there are many ways to implement it, including single-payer, multipayer, and public-private partnerships.

Let’s look at the facts and clear up the misinformation.

Universal Healthcare Costs Less

The first argument made against universal healthcare is that it would cost too much to implement. That is not true.

America currently spends more on healthcare than any other nation, and by a wide margin. The United States spends almost $15,000 per person on healthcare. Germany spends around $9,400. Japan spends about $5,800.

We can see differences in spending by looking at the costs of medical care across countries. The following numbers are median claims costs, meaning the cost going through the healthcare system, not necessarily the exact out-of-pocket cost paid directly by the patient.

• One syringe of Ozempic costs $861 in the US. In Spain, it is $140. In Germany, $85.

• 40mg of Humira costs Americans over $6,000. In Spain, that is under $1,200. In Germany, it is $1,043.

• 4 syringes of Enbrel also cost over $6,000 in America. In Spain, that costs ~$800. In Germany, ~$1,000

The costs of procedures in the US are also high.

• Coronary bypass surgery will cost you $89,000 in America. In Germany, that is about $17,000. In Australia, $17,700.

• A total hip replacement costs $29,000 in the US. In Australia, it costs $15,000. In Spain, $6,800.

• An appendectomy will cost you $13,500 in the United States. In Australia, it costs $4,200. In Spain, only $2,600.

When someone asks how America could afford universal healthcare, the answer is that we are already paying more than any other nation. The real question is why we spend so much and still leave people uninsured, underinsured, buried in medical debt, or unable to afford the care they need. It isn’t about whether America can afford universal healthcare. It is that we cannot afford the system we currently have.

Switching to universal healthcare could save the country hundreds of billions of dollars each year, depending on the program implemented. PLOS Medicine reviewed an economic analysis of 22 single-payer healthcare plans and found that 19 would result in savings in the first year of implementation.

The savings come from reducing administrative waste, negotiating drug prices, controlling provider prices, and removing the expensive maze of private insurance billing.

Sources for this section

• OECD Health at a Glance 2025: U.S. spending per person, GDP spending, and international comparisons

• KFF/Peterson Health System Tracker: U.S. health spending compared with peer nations

• International Federation of Health Plans / Health Care Cost Institute 2024 Cost Comparison Report: procedure and drug price comparisons

• PLOS Medicine review of single-payer financing studies

  ---

Universal Healthcare Improves Outcomes

Despite the United States’ excessive healthcare spending, it does not lead in a single health outcome and is far behind in many of the most important ones.

One of the most common metrics used to evaluate healthcare is preventable mortality. These are deaths that could have been prevented through public health and safety measures and effective early intervention. The United States has 217 preventable deaths per 100,000 people. Australia has 99. Japan has 86. They both spend far less per person for healthcare.

Another version of that evaluation is treatable mortality. The difference is that treatable mortality looks at deaths that could have been avoided through timely and effective medical care after a condition develops. Again, we see the United States with a high number of 95 per 100,000 people, compared to Australia’s 47 and Japan’s 49.

Then there is life expectancy, which is simply the average number of years a person is expected to live. The United States has a paltry life expectancy of 78.4 years. Australia is 83 years, and Japan remains near the top of the charts at 84.1 years.

Two other critical metrics are Infant and Maternal mortality rates. Maternal mortality rate is the number of mothers who die due to pregnancy or childbirth-related issues. And the infant mortality rate is the number of children under the age of 1 who die.

Tragically, among peer nations, the United States leads in both of these death rates. The US has a maternal mortality rate of 17.9, compared to some peer nations that are below 3, and an infant mortality rate of 5.61 compared to nations like Japan and Finland that are below 2.

America has a long way to go to become a leader in healthcare.

Sources for this section

• OECD Health at a Glance 2025: life expectancy, preventable mortality, and treatable mortality

• CDC/NCHS: U.S. maternal mortality rate

• CDC/NCHS: U.S. infant mortality rate

• Commonwealth Fund: U.S. maternal mortality compared with other high-income nations

  ---

Other Measures of Healthcare Spending

Positive health outcomes are the primary concern of most people, but there are other ways to view what society is getting for its spending. These include the percentage of the population covered, wait times, the number of practicing doctors, the number of hospital beds, and the availability of equipment such as advanced imaging devices.

One of the core aspects of universal healthcare is that everyone in the country is covered by the healthcare system. In the United States, this is not the case. 27 million Americans are uninsured. Recent political decisions are projected to increase this number by millions over the next few years.

The problem extends beyond the uninsured.

Millions of Americans technically have insurance, but still cannot afford to use it. This is called being underinsured. Commonwealth Fund found that nearly a quarter of insured working-age adults were underinsured in 2024, meaning their deductibles, copays, or out-of-pocket costs were still high enough to make care unaffordable.

That is why medical debt exists at the scale it does. People go to the doctor, use the hospital, get surgery, have a baby, or need medication, and then find out their insurance still leaves them with bills they cannot pay. Only 56% of Americans are fully, properly insured for the full year.

Universal healthcare is not only about handing someone an insurance card. It is about ensuring the card actually protects them from financial disaster when they get sick. America’s system fails people with and without insurance alike.

Our peer nations do better on routine and preventative care. Only two in five US Medicare beneficiaries who needed to see a doctor could book an appointment within 2 days when they were sick. In the Netherlands, 61% can book an appointment on short notice, and 85% can get same-day responses to medical questions.

One reason is that in the US, there are only 2.7 practicing doctors per 1,000 people. In Australia, there are 4.2, and in Germany, 4.7. The US has fewer hospital beds as well, with 2.8 per 1,000 people compared to Germany’s 7.7 and Japan’s 12.5.

There are a couple of bright spots for the US. The average wait time for specialized, elective care is lower than in peer nations, and the US has more CT/MRI/PET units than other nations.

America has built a system that is very good at expensive specialized care, because that is where the money is. A profit-driven system pushes more specialized elective care, which carries higher profit margins and better pay, but at the cost of worse routine and preventive care.

The good news is that there is no need for America to lose its advantage in specialized care as we solve our healthcare problems. We can preserve high-quality specialized care while also making routine care affordable, reducing medical debt, expanding coverage, and catching health problems before they become emergencies.

Sources for this section

• KFF: uninsured population and recent coverage changes

• Commonwealth Fund: underinsurance among working-age adults

• Commonwealth Fund: medical debt and affordability problems

• Commonwealth Fund: older adults’ access to care across countries

• OECD Health at a Glance 2025: doctors, hospital beds, medical technology, and population coverage

• CBO/KFF: projected increases in the uninsured from recent policy changes

  ---

What Is Universal Healthcare?

There is a common misconception in the United States that universal healthcare means having a single-payer system. Single-payer is one form of universal healthcare, but not the only one. There are multipayer systems, as well as public-private partnerships. At its core, universal healthcare is based on two principles.

• Every resident has healthcare

• Medical care does not create financial hardship

Let’s look at some different systems to see how they work.

Single-Payer

Single-payer healthcare means that all citizens pay into the same healthcare financing system. In other words, healthcare is publicly funded through taxes and mandatory contributions. But even single-payer healthcare systems are not all the same.

In the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, the government, either nationally or regionally, owns many of the hospitals and healthcare facilities and directly employs healthcare workers. It is government-funded and government-operated.

In Canada and Taiwan, the government collects the money for healthcare and then pays out to privately run providers that operate within the bounds of government regulation on services provided and their costs.

In all universal healthcare countries, there are services that fall outside the core healthcare system, such as cosmetic surgery and other elective procedures. Those services operate more like the U.S. system, where providers set their own prices, and people pay directly or use private coverage.

Multipayer

Where single-payer means that everyone is part of the same health insurance system, multipayer means that there is more than one system.

Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan are examples of multipayer healthcare systems.

Germany mandates that all residents have healthcare and uses a system of highly regulated, nonprofit sickness funds funded by payroll contributions from workers and employers (payroll taxes similar to those for Medicare in America). High-income earners can opt out of the system to use private insurance instead.

The Netherlands also requires all residents to purchase healthcare through heavily regulated private insurers, which must accept all applicants and compete for customers. They are required to offer a standard benefits package to all recipients. The government pays subsidies to make insurance more affordable.

In Japan, all residents must enroll in either the Employees’ Health Insurance through their employer or in the National Health Insurance for the self-employed, the unemployed, and students.

Germany typically has lower out-of-pocket costs for routine care. The Netherlands has an annual deductible similar to many American health insurance plans. Japan has a 70/30 rule in which patients pay 30% of the out-of-pocket cost, while insurance covers the remaining 70%. There are adjustments in copay for children and low-income seniors, and there are monthly caps on healthcare costs based on income to prevent financial hardship from severe medical bills.

Universal healthcare does not require one specific model. Canada is different from Germany. Germany is different from Taiwan. Taiwan is different from the Netherlands. The Netherlands is different from Australia. All of those nations are considered among the top 10 for healthcare. Taiwan routinely ranks first and has a satisfaction rate over 90%.

Sources for this section

• WHO: definition of universal health coverage

• Commonwealth Fund: how universal health coverage works

• Commonwealth Fund: international health system profiles

• Commonwealth Fund: lessons from universal systems abroad

  ---

What Should the United States Do?

For years, polling has consistently shown that the American public believes it is the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens have health care coverage, while also expressing concern that health care costs are rising too much.

Whether they realize it or not, those responses are asking for universal healthcare. While the top 5 healthcare systems in the world are all single-payer, which is also the most cost-efficient approach to healthcare, America does not appear ready to make that change.

When polls ask specifically about the type of universal healthcare, the public is split. There is as much support for a single-payer system as for a public/private split. That is where we should start, with deciding how to create a system that will guarantee every citizen affordable healthcare while being accepted by the majority of the public as the right path forward.

Interestingly, the original plans for the Affordable Care Act were intended to address this.

This included mandating that all Americans have health insurance, just like the multipayer systems in other nations such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan. This was part of the ACA legislation that was passed. It was called the individual mandate. But opponents fiercely attacked the measure, even taking it to court. The end result was that the individual mandate remained technically still part of the ACA, but the penalty for not carrying insurance was reduced to $0, rendering it meaningless.

There are two reasons to mandate that everyone has healthcare.

The first is that it means people have health insurance when they need it. So if they have a serious accident or illness, they receive proper care to get them healthy, rather than relying on emergency room care or going bankrupt from the costs.

The second reason is that having everyone insured lowers insurance costs. Requiring all drivers to have car insurance keeps costs down because most drivers won’t need to file a claim in any given year. Their funds go to those who do have accidents, keeping the program working. The same is true for healthcare. If only those who are currently sick have healthcare, then the cost of healthcare would be extremely high. If all healthy people also carry health insurance, costs stay low. Then, when those healthy people need care in some future year, they’ll have it without having to spend a fortune out of pocket.

Another aspect the ACA originally intended to address was providing people who want government-provided healthcare with a public option, meaning they could get their insurance directly from the government rather than a private insurer. Under this system, private insurance companies would still exist, but the public has a choice between public and private insurance.

The health insurance companies aren’t big fans of the public option because they understand the government will negotiate lower prices, forcing them to lower their costs as well, thereby reducing their profits.

Independent Senator Joe Lieberman killed the ACA public option. His vote was needed to reach the 60 votes in the Senate required to pass the regulation against a Republican filibuster. He refused to vote for the ACA without the public option removed.

Requiring every citizen to have health insurance and offering a public option would be the first step toward a universal healthcare system. The next step would be to establish regulations defining maximum and out-of-pocket costs for various services and treatments, with a heightened focus on routine and preventive services. Treating illnesses earlier reduces the need for expensive treatments, reduces lost workdays, and helps people live longer, healthier lives.

By adding a public option, people get to see how government healthcare works. If they prefer it to the private options, America can take the next step toward a single-payer system and save even more money. If people like what private insurance companies are offering, the US can remain a multipayer system.

We can build an American version of universal healthcare that covers everyone, lowers costs, reduces medical debt, protects routine care, and preserves access to high-quality specialized care.

Sources for this section

• Pew Research Center: Americans’ views on government responsibility for health coverage

• Gallup: support for government ensuring healthcare coverage and public/private split

• AP-NORC: health cost concerns and support for federal responsibility

• IRS / Healthcare.gov: individual mandate penalty reduced to $0

• Commonwealth Fund / CQ HealthBeat: public option dropped during ACA negotiations

  ---

Conclusion

Universal healthcare is used by the rest of the world because guaranteeing that all citizens have affordable comprehensive insurance works. It creates better outcomes and lower costs. America needs to stop treating universal healthcare as a synonym for single-payer healthcare and start implementing solutions that will address our high costs and poor outcomes.

The United States does not have to choose between doing nothing and copying another country’s system. We can guarantee coverage, lower drug prices, cap out-of-pocket costs, reduce medical debt, and invest in routine and preventive care. We can rein in prices while preserving access to high-quality specialized care.

The only thing stopping this progress is the misinformation that makes Americans believe that the most expensive healthcare system in the world, with worse outcomes, is the only one we can afford.

Trump surrendered to Iran. That is what the Memorandum of Understanding shows.

Iran gets sanctions relief, the ability to sell its oil, the US staying out of its internal affairs (protests), and $300 billion for reconstruction. It may very well charge transit fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz in the future, and it has learned it has a weapon far more potent than possessing a nuclear weapon: the ability to disrupt the global economy and turn voters against their leaders.

What does the US get? Nothing. Ships will flow through the Strait again, easing oil and gas prices, but it was already open before Trump and Netanyahu started this war. Iran will also agree not to build a nuclear weapon, but it wasn’t building one and had agreed in the previous nuclear deal not to build a weapon. The deal that Trump tore up in his first term that created this mess.

This is a monumental failure and an embarrassment. The United States looks far weaker on the world stage, while Iran looks stronger.

The world understands how to deal with a bully like Trump: fight back. Trump started a trade war, and China fought back. The US lost. Trump wanted to reignite US imperialism and take over NATO nations. NATO fought back. The US lost. Trump started an unnecessary and illegal war in Iran. Iran fought back. The US lost.

The United States was once a respected leader on the world stage, but those days have come to an end because of the ego of one man and the political party that bent the knee.

America is in decline.

The only way to change this is to get serious about who we elect to Congress and the White House. Forget the culture war nonsense. Forget the partisan hate. Stop trying to control other people’s lives. And elect competent, informed, patriotic leaders who want to fix America’s problems and improve lives.

It was convincing enough to lock in 77 million votes and win the presidency. But there has been no economic boom. Inflation is worse, the job market has stalled, deficits are higher, wages are falling behind prices, unemployment is up, more people are uninsured, and there is a new war.

Through all of it, the public has been handed spectacle after spectacle. They’ve given us the circuses, but forgot the bread.

The White House lawn has been transformed from nature’s vibrant green into a monstrosity of steel, all so men can beat each other into submission in front of the President for his birthday. It is a cheap imitation of Rome’s brutal Colosseum.

This follows last year’s military parade for the President’s birthday. It was intended to be in the grand style of dictators abroad, but instead left people talking about a slow, squeaky tank and soldiers carrying drones down the street.

Since taking power, this administration has wanted to show that tough, manly men are back in charge. They will do what they want. They will apologize to no one.

That obsession with dominance has produced bizarre moments, such as the Secretary of Defense, who insists on being called the Secretary of War, delivering a strange rhyming declaration about “maximum lethality, not tepid legality,” as if the military’s problem was too much law and not enough bloodlust.

That kind of language creates a government that celebrates extrajudicial killings of supposed smugglers on the ocean. It becomes a threat to destroy civilian targets and end an entire civilization if demands are not met. It turns the military into a solution in search of problems.

That military was given an order to raid another country and abduct its leader back to the US, not in an effort to end a corrupt regime, but merely to shift the corruption to doing the bidding of the American President.

The same president who gives out favors in exchange for shiny baubles, pardons criminals as long as they support him, and threatens everyone who opposes him with baseless lawsuits.

We have a leader with authoritarian dreams, where no one can disagree with him without punishment. He wants banners of his face draping government buildings and statues erected in his honor. He stuck his name on the memorial for a different, better president. He wants his face on money and has his cabinet hold a roundtable of insincere praise to protect his fragile ego at every meeting.

While Americans are struggling to afford healthcare, the administration plans a giant arch. Instead of livable wages, statues are gilded in gold. In place of a balanced budget, demolition begins to make room for a $1 billion ballroom.

One man’s vanity projects have become the government’s top priorities.

What this administration has forgotten is that political corruption needs the bread to go along with the circuses. If people are struggling to put food on the table, pay their bills, and find a job, then they do not care how many spectacles you throw at them. None of it will be enough to distract them from their hardships. It will only highlight the extravagant opulence of a government completely out of touch with the public.

This is the administration’s “let them eat cake” moment: a president dismissing affordability as a hoax while families are watching groceries, gas, healthcare, and housing put them deeper into debt.

The good news is that, unlike France or America in the 1700s, we do not need a revolution to fix this. We need to vote.

Vote for people who care more about grocery bills than gold statues. Vote for people who believe in affordable healthcare rather than military pageantry. Vote for people who understand that public office is not a stage for sycophancy, but a job serving the public.

That is how we create a better America.

The most common piece of misinformation is that Social Security adds to the national debt and, for that reason, the program must be cut or privatized.

Social Security does not add to the debt. It has a shortfall, but that has nothing to do with the debt. It uses its trust fund built from past surpluses to cover the difference and is prohibited by law from borrowing money.

We will discuss each aspect of Social Security finances and how it all works.

How Social Security Budgeting Works

Social Security is funded mainly by payroll taxes, along with interest on its trust-fund securities and income taxes paid on some Social Security benefits. It is prohibited by law from borrowing money.

When Social Security has a surplus, it is required to invest those funds in Treasuries, including both special-issue Treasuries, which are available only to government trust funds such as Social Security, and publicly available Treasuries that you or I can also buy. These days, Social Security only holds special-issue Treasuries.

Bonds, which are what Treasuries are, are a standard way to raise money. They have three parts: the principal, maturity date, and interest rate. Purchasing a bond is giving a loan to the bond issuer, in this case, the federal government. There are also corporate bonds and municipal bonds, which are bonds issued by state and local governments. You purchase a bond at the principal value, and when the bond matures, the issuer of the bond pays you back the principal. During the duration of the bond, interest payments are paid to the holder at regular intervals. Special-issue Treasury securities differ from public Treasury securities because the trust funds can redeem them at face value when needed to pay benefits, rather than selling them on the open market.

An issuer of a bond agrees to take a loan to cover costs today, in exchange for paying interest on that loan until it is repaid in full at the end of the loan period. It is similar to a loan, such as a 30-year mortgage, where you agree to a repayment schedule and an interest rate. You have borrowed money to meet your needs and have an obligation to repay it with interest.

Because Social Security routinely buys bonds, there is a constant stream of bonds reaching their maturity date. When that happens, Social Security has two options. If the amount coming in from payroll taxes is sufficient to cover the program’s current expenses, the funds are reinvested in new bonds; this is called rolling over a bond. If the amount from payroll taxes isn’t sufficient, then the funds from the maturing bonds are applied to Social Security benefit payments.

In the past, Social Security amassed a sizable trust fund. Today, it is cashing out bonds far more often than it is investing new money. The reason is that people are living longer than in the past, and the boomer generation, named for the baby boom at that time, is especially large. In 1960, there were 5.1 people paying into Social Security for every beneficiary. Today, there are only 2.7.

Sources for this section

• SSA — “Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds” - Explains special-issue Treasury securities, public issues, certificates of indebtedness, long-term bonds, and why the trust funds now hold only special issues.

• SSA — “Trust fund FAQs” - Explains that trust-fund income must be invested in federal securities and that special issues can be redeemed at face value when needed.

• SSA — Social Security Act §201 - Legal basis for the OASI and DI trust funds, trust-fund investments, full faith and credit backing, and benefit payments from the trust funds.

• SSA — “What are the Trust Funds?” - Plain-language explanation of what the trust funds are, what they can be used for, and how securities are redeemed.

• SSA — “Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2025” - Includes worker-to-beneficiary ratios, including 5.1 workers per beneficiary in 1960 and recent ratios.

  ---

The Basis Of The Claim That Social Security Adds To The National Debt

The entire basis of the claim that Social Security adds to the national debt revolves around these bonds and the current government budget. The federal government has had a deficit for the past 25 years. It was $1.8 trillion last year. Because the government is running a deficit, it has to borrow money to pay its debts, further increasing the national debt.

The claim is that when Social Security redeems Treasury securities to pay benefits, the Treasury may need to borrow from the public to get the cash, increasing publicly held debt. But by that logic, every person, institution, and country that owns a Treasury, such as a T-Bill or T-Note, is causing the debt to rise. The reality is that the government needs to borrow money to fund itself, someone has to hold that debt, and the government has a responsibility to repay those loans. The source of the new debt is the federal government’s unbalanced budget that doesn’t meet its obligations, not Social Security, you, or me, for loaning the government money by buying a Treasury note.

If you take out a car loan and, because you don’t have the money to make your obligated payments, you take out another loan to cover them, is the car or the car loan increasing your debt? Or was it from you making an obligation that you could not fulfill?

Social Security does not add to the national debt.

Sources for this section

• Tax Policy Center — “Are the Social Security trust funds real?” - Explainer confirming the trust funds are real obligations while explaining the budget impact of redemption.

• SSA — “The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget” - Explains unified budget treatment and the sense in which payroll tax surpluses invested in Treasury securities are lent to the federal government.

  ---

Is Social Security Running Out Of Money?

Another common statement is that in a decade or so, Social Security will run out of money and no one will receive benefits. That is not accurate.

Social Security has two trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), which pays retirement benefits, and Disability Insurance (DI).

The Social Security OASI trust fund, funded by past surpluses, is being depleted and is expected to run out in less than a decade if nothing changes. But Social Security will continue to collect payroll taxes and pay out as much of the benefits as it can with that revenue. People will still receive benefits, but because Social Security is specifically prohibited from borrowing, benefits will decrease by about 25%.

This is still a serious problem because Social Security benefits are barely enough, and often too low, to serve the needs of recipients today. A significant reduction would cause substantial hardship for millions of Americans.

The DI trust fund is well-funded and will not be exhausted for several decades.

Sources for this section

• SSA — “Trustees Report Summary” - Current trust-fund depletion projections and percent of benefits payable after depletion.

  ---

Did The Government “Raid” The Social Security Trust Fund?

No.

There is a lot of confusion around the Social Security Trust Fund and federal budgets, as well as about an authorized inter-Trust Fund borrowing in the 1980s. Let’s clear that up.

Today, the federal government looks at revenue and spending through a unified budget. That means taking all expenses and all incomes, combining them, and looking at the overall state of the finances. This does not mean that all money is put into a shared giant slush fund and used as needed. The trust funds are still legally separate. The unified budget is simply to make the budget easier to understand, although doing so blurs the difference between Social Security and the general fund, which creates the confusion we see today.

We often hear about publicly held debt vs government held debt. For example, there is around $32 trillion in publicly held debt compared to $39 trillion in overall debt, which includes intergovernmental debt.

Previously, we discussed how Social Security buys special-issue Treasuries rather than publicly traded bonds. This classifies the surplus held by Social Security as intergovernmental debt. This does not mean the government money is a single pool that can be used for whatever it wants. All programs and trust funds have their own accounting, and laws govern how money can be used.

The government cannot take money from the Social Security Trust Funds to pay for other things like the military, education, or interest on its debt, and Social Security is not allowed to borrow money from other government sources to cover its costs. They are separate; only reported together for ease of understanding.

There were two times in 1982 when very specific borrowing was undertaken among the OASI trust fund, the DI trust fund, and the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund to address short-term cash flow issues. In this case, around $17 billion was moved into the OASI, and that amount was fully repaid in 1986. The borrowing was permitted only by a law passed in 1981 for this purpose.

The federal government has never raided or borrowed from Social Security Trust Funds. Social Security Trust Funds use their surpluses to buy government debt through Treasuries, which is how the program is designed to work. The government hasn’t dipped its hands into the funds to siphon away your money.

Sources for this section

• SSA — “Internet Myths Part 2” - Debunks the claim that Social Security was put into the general fund and explains the budget-accounting confusion.

• SSA — “The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget” - Explains unified budget treatment and the sense in which payroll tax surpluses invested in Treasury securities are lent to the federal government.

• SSA — “Inter-Fund Borrowing Among the Trust Funds” - Explains the early-1980s interfund borrowing among OASI, DI, and HI and repayment requirements.

  ---

How Do We Address The Shortfall

Social Security does have a shortfall and will exhaust its trust funds if the issue is not addressed. So how do we address it?

• The first option is to reduce benefits, which will allow the trust funds to last longer. Since benefits are already too low, this option doesn’t properly address the issue.

• The second option is to increase the retirement age, which will reduce the number of beneficiaries and lower the cost of the program. Not surprisingly, people who have been working for 40 years or more wouldn’t be happy to be told their retirement has been pushed back another five years. This is not a politically popular option.

• The third option is to remove the cap on Social Security payroll taxes. The current cap is on earnings up to $184,500. Any income above that amount is not taxed for Social Security. Capital gains, money earned by selling investments such as stocks, aren’t taxed for Social Security at all. Increasing or removing the tax cap altogether would increase revenue to the program and add decades of runway to the trust funds. It is worth noting that the tax cap was removed from Medicare in 1993 specifically to ensure the program was better funded. And one last note: raising the tax cap does not mean that maximum benefits must be increased, which is an often-cited reason for not adjusting the cap. Medicare benefits were not increased when its tax cap was removed.

• The fourth option is to implement means testing for benefits, which is a fancy way of saying that Social Security benefits would no longer be given to people with high incomes or significant wealth in retirement, leaving more money for those who genuinely need the benefits. Many federal programs, such as food, healthcare, and housing assistance, work this way.

• The fifth option is to increase the population so that there is a better ratio of people paying into Social Security to those receiving benefits. America’s birthrate has been low since the 1970s, and a new generation of babies wouldn’t be paying into the system for around 18 years, which would be after the surplus has been exhausted. This means the only way to increase the population fast enough is through immigration. Given the current government’s anti-immigration stance, this is a very unlikely path.

Conclusion

Social Security does not add to the national debt. The government has not raided its coffers. Its funds are not tossed into a general funding bucket. But it faces a looming shortfall that will significantly reduce benefits if no action is taken.

Let’s look at several economic numbers, how they’ve changed since 2024, and briefly discuss why they matter.

One of the metrics we hear about the most is Inflation, which is the change in prices of goods and services over time. Inflation has risen a decent amount, from 2.9% in 2024 to 3.8% today. But what level of inflation is good and what is bad?

It depends. If inflation is at 4%, but your wages increase by 5%, you are better off even though prices are rising faster. That’s why we look at wage gains.

In 2024, wages grew 3.9%. They grew faster than inflation, and the lowest earners were seeing the biggest gains. Another way to put it is that real wage growth is 1%. The term “real” means it is what wage gains were after inflation was accounted for. 3.9% wage growth - 2.9% inflation = 1%.

In 2026, wage gains are 3.6%. They are growing more slowly than inflation, and the lowest earners are seeing the smallest gains. Workers were getting ahead, but now they’re falling behind.

One of the most talked-about aspects of inflation right now is oil prices, which drive up diesel and gas prices. Gas prices, as reported by AAA, have risen from around $3 per gallon in December 2024 to $4.29 per gallon today. Prices have been falling for a couple of weeks amid hopes of a peace deal with Iran, but negotiations are facing setbacks, and oil supplies are dwindling.

All of this is hitting households hard as the personal savings rate, the percentage of disposable income that is saved instead of spent, has dropped to just 2.6%, as low as during the height of inflation during the pandemic recovery. More Americans are using credit cards for necessities, and the credit card delinquency rate is the highest since the 2008 financial crisis.

Another term we often hear is GDP Growth, which is actually Real GDP Growth, meaning inflation is factored in. Gross Domestic Product is the total value of all goods and services produced in a country. Real GDP Growth is the rate of growth of GDP. This matters because a faster-growing economy typically means more jobs, higher pay, and greater opportunity, while slower growth means the opposite.

GDP grew by 2.8% in 2024. It has grown only 1.6% as of the first quarter of 2026. We can see how this slowdown is affecting workers by looking at jobs.

The unemployment rate in 2024 was 4%. It has since risen to 4.3%. Jobs added per month dropped from over 120,000 in 2024 to 76,000 this year. All of which has resulted in there being 6.8 million job openings for 7.2 million unemployed in March

That situation was reversed in 2024 when there were 7.6 million job openings for 6.9 million unemployed. That means we had a job openings-to-unemployed ratio of 1.10, but it had fallen to 0.94. Having more jobs than job seekers means companies have to compete more for workers, which increases wages.

Today’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover (JOLT) showed a large increase in job openings in April, bringing the total openings up to 7.6 million, but the vast majority of those new openings are white-collar jobs. Blue-collar jobs continue to decline.

GDP also matters for the nation’s debt. The better the debt-to-GDP ratio, the better the country’s financial position. Unfortunately, as GDP growth has slowed, the debt has surged, rising from $35.5 trillion to $39 trillion. In 2024, the ratio was 120.25%. The current debt-to-GDP ratio is 122.5%. Looking at only publicly held debt, the debt-to-GDP ratio has increased from 96.8% to over 100%, a level we haven’t seen since the WWII era.

We are now spending over $1 trillion each year on the interest on the national debt. That doesn’t reduce the debt, only maintain it.

Given that information, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the deficit has risen from $1.8 trillion to a projected $2 trillion this year. The surprising part is that this increase came as financial assistance programs, education, and foreign spending through agencies like USAID were cut, while tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate loopholes were larger than the budget cuts.

Those cuts have increased the number of uninsured Americans from 27 million to a projected 30 million. A greater number of uninsured puts an economic strain on the nation as more burden falls on emergency rooms, medical debt and bankruptcy rise, and more people miss work and rely on federal assistance due to medical issues.

Overall, the economy is worse today, particularly for working-class Americans. The worst part is that not only is Congress doing nothing to fix it, but it is also actively making it worse through legislation like the One Big Beautiful Bill, allowing broad tariffs to increase costs and reduce jobs, and not stopping the illegal war in Iran, which has supercharged inflation.

Workers deserve a Congress that works for them, and they have the chance to make that a reality in November.

Here’s the truth: raising the minimum wage does not cause meaningful job loss and has a negligible effect on prices. This has been proven time and again. Instead, it reduces poverty and hardship, improves health, reduces reliance on assistance programs, increases federal revenue, raises wages for workers already earning above the minimum wage, and bolsters the economy.

The question is not whether America can afford higher wages. It is why highly profitable companies are allowed to pay poverty wages, causing their workers to be subsidized by taxpayers.

The claim

If the government raises the minimum wage, businesses will have to fire workers, cut hours, replace people with machines, or raise prices so much that workers lose whatever they gained.

This is the argument used every time people ask for better wages. It sounds like it could be common sense until you look below the surface.

Why higher wages do not automatically mean job losses or huge price increases

I’m going to dive into all the data showing what really happens when the minimum wage is raised in a moment, but first I want to explain why raising the minimum wage does not affect prices and jobs the way you might expect.

The argument against raising the minimum wage usually treats businesses like a simple math problem: if wages go up, the business must either fire workers or raise prices by the same amount.

That sounds logical until you remember that labor is only one part of a business’s costs.

If a worker’s wage rises by 20%, that does not mean the price of a burger, pizza, hotel room, or grocery item needs to rise by 20%. The wage increase only affects the labor portion of the cost, and even then, only the workers whose wages are actually increased.

A restaurant, store, hotel, or warehouse also pays rent, utilities, insurance, equipment costs, debt payments, franchise fees, advertising, technology costs, ingredients, supplies, shipping, executive pay, corporate overhead, and profits to owners or shareholders. That is why a significant increase in the minimum wage does not translate into an equally large increase in prices.

Instead, price effects are usually small. San Jose raised its minimum wage by 25%, and restaurant prices rose by about 1.45%. California raised fast-food wages to $20 an hour, and Berkeley researchers found prices rose by about 1.5%, or roughly 6 cents on a $4 item. The wage increase was large. The price increase was not.

Here is what the CEO of McDonald’s said during a 2020 earnings call:

“Our view is the minimum wage is most likely going to be increasing, whether that’s federally or at the state level as I referenced, and so long as it’s done … in a staged way and in a way that is equitable for everybody, McDonald’s will do just fine through that.”

And here is what Denny’s CFO said about California minimum wage increases to investors:

“As they’ve increased their minimum wage kind of in a tempered pace over that time frame, if you look at that time frame from us, California has outperformed the system. Over that time frame, they had six consecutive years of positive guest traffic—not just positive sales, but positive guest traffic—as the minimum wage was going up.”

Quite a different tone and view than what we often hear from the restaurant industry in public about minimum wage increases. They say it will hurt business, hurt workers, and negatively impact the economy, but when it comes to their own business, they admit minimum wage increases won’t hurt them and may even improve their operations.

Sources for this section

• National Restaurant Association, “Elevated labor costs had a significant impact on restaurant profitability in 2024.” Reports that salaries and wages, including benefits, represented a median of 31.7% of sales among limited-service restaurant operators in 2024.

• Allegretto and Reich, “Are Local Minimum Wages Absorbed by Price Increases?” Finds that San Jose’s 25% minimum-wage increase raised restaurant prices by about 1.45%, and explains that restaurants can absorb labor-cost increases with relatively small price increases because labor is only one part of total costs.

• Berkeley IRLE, “Effects of a $20 Minimum Wage.” Finds that California’s $20 fast-food minimum wage increased wages without reducing employment and increased prices by about 1.5%.

• Dube, Lester, and Reich, “Minimum Wage Shocks, Employment Flows, and Labor Market Frictions.” Finds that minimum-wage increases reduced worker separations and new hires among affected workers without reducing overall employment levels.

• Newsweek article discussing what companies are telling investors about minimum wages versus what they say publicly.

  ---

California’s $20 fast-food minimum wage

The most recent major study of this issue examined California’s increase in the fast-food minimum wage to $20 an hour. That increase went into effect on April 1, 2024, and covered workers at large fast-food chains.

This is a particularly important study because a $20 wage is a livable wage in many parts of the country, and the fast-food industry is exactly the kind of low-wage industry where opponents always predict disaster.

The disaster did not happen.

A Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment study found that California’s $20 fast-food minimum wage increased average weekly wages for covered workers by about 11%. It did not reduce employment. It did not reduce weekly hours. Prices increased by about 1.5%, which equates to a 6-cent increase on a $4 item.

Workers got a meaningful raise. Jobs did not disappear. Hours were not cut. Prices went up only a little.

A separate study from The Shift Project at Harvard Kennedy School surveyed fast-food workers during this wage change and also found no evidence of reduced work hours, increased understaffing, worse scheduling instability, increased wage theft, or reduced fringe benefits.

This is important because companies often claim they will be forced to respond to higher wages by cutting hours, worsening schedules, reducing benefits, or forcing fewer workers to do the same amount of work. The Shift Project did not find evidence of that happening after California’s fast-food wage increase.

Sources for this section

• Berkeley IRLE, “Effects of a $20 Minimum Wage: Evidence from Granular Data on Wages, Employment and Prices.” This is the main California fast-food study finding an 11% increase in average weekly wages, no employment reduction, no implied reduction in weekly hours, and a 1.5% price increase.

• The Shift Project, “Early Effects of California’s $20 Fast Food Minimum Wage.” This worker survey found no evidence of reduced hours, increased understaffing, worse scheduling instability, wage theft, or reduced fringe benefits.

  ---

Other minimum-wage increases show the same pattern

California’s fast-food increase is not the only example. The broader research points in the same direction: higher minimum wages raise pay, while the predicted mass job loss does not appear.

One of the most famous studies looked at New Jersey’s 1992 minimum wage increase. New Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05 an hour, while neighboring Pennsylvania did not. David Card and Alan Krueger surveyed fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania before and after the increase. They found no evidence that the higher minimum wage reduced employment in New Jersey fast-food restaurants compared with Pennsylvania.

This study became famous because it challenged the old textbook assumption that raising wages automatically means fewer jobs. It showed that real labor markets are not as simple as the corporate talking point.

A later study by Dube, Lester, and Reich compared counties on opposite sides of state borders from 1990 to 2006. That design allowed researchers to compare neighboring local economies where one side had a higher minimum wage and the other did not. They found no adverse employment effects in restaurants and other low-wage sectors.

Another major study by Cengiz, Dube, Lindner, and Zipperer looked at 138 state-level minimum wage increases from 1979 to 2016. Their finding is one of the easiest to understand: jobs paying below the new minimum wage largely disappeared because they became better-paying jobs, not because the jobs vanished.

Price studies tell a similar story. When San Jose raised its minimum wage by 25% in 2013, restaurant prices rose by about 1.45% on average. That is almost the same price effect found in the California fast-food study, where prices rose by about 1.5%.

This is what the evidence keeps showing: wages rise a lot more than prices. Workers gain real income. Businesses adjust through a mix of small price increases, lower turnover, productivity changes, reduced margins, and other adjustments.

The evidence does not support the idea that higher minimum wages cause mass job loss or huge price increases.

Sources for this section

• Card and Krueger, “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” Classic fast-food natural experiment finding no evidence that New Jersey’s minimum wage increase reduced employment compared with Pennsylvania.

• Dube, Lester, and Reich, “Minimum Wage Effects Across State Borders.” Contiguous-county study comparing counties across state borders from 1990 to 2006 and finding no adverse employment effects in restaurants and other low-wage sectors.

• Cengiz, Dube, Lindner, and Zipperer, “The Effect of Minimum Wages on Low-Wage Jobs.” Study of 138 state minimum-wage increases from 1979 to 2016 finding that low-wage jobs shifted up in pay rather than disappearing.

• Allegretto and Reich, “Are Local Minimum Wages Absorbed by Price Increases?” San Jose restaurant-menu study finding that a 25% minimum-wage increase raised restaurant prices by about 1.45%.

• Berkeley IRLE six-city study. Examined higher local minimum wages in Chicago, D.C., Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle and found higher earnings without significant employment losses.

  ---

Higher minimum wages benefit workers — and everyone else

The most obvious benefit of raising the minimum wage is that low-wage workers get paid more. That alone is enough reason to do it.

Higher wages mean people can buy more food, pay rent more easily, cover utility bills, repair a car, go to the doctor, avoid debt, and live with less constant stress. Recent research has linked more generous minimum-wage policies to lower food insecurity among households with children, and broader research connects higher minimum wages with improved health and standard of living.

A person working full-time should not need to live in survival mode.

But higher minimum wages do not only help the workers who were making less than the new minimum. They also help workers who were already making a little more.

Economists call this the ripple effect, or spillover effect. When the wage floor rises, employers often raise wages above the new minimum too. They do this to preserve wage ladders, retain workers, compete with other employers, and avoid situations in which experienced workers leave for easier or less stressful jobs paying nearly the same amount.

That means higher minimum wages can benefit far more people than the workers who were literally making the old minimum wage.

Multiple studies and policy estimates show this effect reaching well beyond the minimum-wage worker. Some research finds wage spillovers extending up to around the 30th percentile of the wage distribution. In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a $15 federal minimum wage by 2025 would directly raise wages for 17 million workers and could also raise wages for another 10.3 million workers earning above the new minimum. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that a $17 federal minimum wage by 2030 would affect about 22.2 million workers, or 15% of the U.S. wage-earning workforce, even after accounting for state and local minimum wages already higher than the federal floor.

The exact number depends on the size of the increase, the timing, and the wage distribution. But the pattern is clear: raising the minimum wage pushes wages upward for a large group of workers, not just the people at the very bottom.

Higher minimum wages also reduce the amount of low-wage work that taxpayers are forced to subsidize.

When companies pay workers too little to live on, those workers often need SNAP, Medicaid, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, or other public supports to survive. Those programs are necessary because people need to eat, get healthcare, and keep a roof over their heads. But when profitable companies pay wages so low that workers still need public assistance, taxpayers are effectively helping subsidize the low-wage business model. Raising wages shifts more of that responsibility back where it belongs: onto employers who benefit from the labor.

Research from the Economic Policy Institute found that among workers in the bottom three wage deciles, every $1 increase in hourly wages reduced the likelihood of receiving means-tested public assistance by 3.1 percentage points. Another analysis from the Center for American Progress estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce federal nutrition assistance spending by $46 billion over 10 years.

Reduced reliance on assistance programs means the government spends less. Increasing wages also means more people will pay federal income tax, which increases the government’s revenue. Paying workers more improves the government’s financial situation, which is critical at a time of rising deficits and dangerous levels of debt. On top of all that, higher wages increase spending, which in turn improves production. 70% of the US economy relies on consumer spending.

That is why this debate should not be framed as if higher wages only help “someone else.” They improve prosperity for the entire nation.

Sources for this section

• CBO, “The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage.” Estimated that a $15 minimum wage by 2025 would raise wages for 17 million directly affected workers and many of 10.3 million potentially affected workers earning slightly above the new minimum.

• EPI, “The impact of the Raise the Wage Act of 2025.” Estimated that a $17 federal minimum wage by 2030 would affect 22.2 million workers, about 15% of the U.S. wage-earning workforce, and provide $70 billion in additional annual wages.

• Redmond, Doorley, and McGuinness, “The Impact of a Minimum Wage Change on the Distribution of Wages and Household Income.” Found wage spillover effects extending to the 30th percentile of the wage distribution.

• Hamilton Project / Brookings, “The Ripple Effect of a Minimum Wage Increase on American Workers.” Explains how minimum-wage increases affect workers earning slightly above the minimum.

• EPI, “Balancing paychecks and public assistance.” Found that among workers in the bottom three wage deciles, each $1 increase in hourly wages reduced the likelihood of receiving means-tested public assistance by 3.1 percentage points.

• Center for American Progress, “The Effects of Minimum Wages on SNAP Enrollments and Expenditures.” Estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce federal nutrition assistance spending by $46 billion over 10 years.

• JAMA Network Open / PMC, “State Minimum Wage and Food Insecurity Among US Households With Children.” Found that more generous state minimum-wage policies may reduce food insecurity among households with children at risk of economic hardship.

  ---

We have done this before

America has already had a stronger minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage reached its peak in 1968. The country did not collapse. Businesses still existed. People still became rich. The economy grew at a faster pace than it does today. The national debt was much lower. The middle class was at its strongest.

That does not mean the 1968 minimum wage caused all of that on its own. The strong middle class came from multiple policies and conditions: stronger unions, higher taxes on the rich, more public investment, less extreme corporate power, and a political system that had not yet surrendered so much power to billionaires and corporate lobbyists.

The livable minimum wage was part of that system. A strong wage floor helped set a standard for the value of work.

Since then, Congress has allowed inflation to erode the federal minimum wage. The wage has been stuck at $7.25 since 2009. It has half the buying power today that it had in 1968, despite workers being more productive, the economy being much larger, and corporations earning record profits.

America was prosperous with a quality minimum wage in 1968, and it can be again today.

Sources for this section

• U.S. Department of Labor, “History of Changes to the Minimum Wage Law.” Official history showing the federal minimum wage rose to $7.25 on July 24, 2009 and has not increased since.

• EPI, “Setting high standards for a federal minimum wage.” Reports that the federal minimum wage reached $1.60 in 1968, equivalent to $12.62 in 2026 dollars, and was about 61% of the national median wage.

• EPI, “The federal minimum wage is officially a poverty wage in 2025.” Discusses the collapse in the real value of the federal minimum wage and the workers left behind in states still using the federal floor.

  ---

The rebuttal

The minimum-wage debate is framed as either we have low prices and more jobs, or higher pay, higher prices, and fewer jobs. That framing benefits employers who want to exploit labor for profits.

The evidence shows the truth.

California raised fast-food wages to $20 an hour. Wages went up, employment did not fall, hours were not cut, and prices rose about 1.5%. San Jose raised its minimum wage by 25%, and restaurant prices rose about 1.45%. Broader studies across states, cities, and border counties repeatedly find little to no meaningful job loss from minimum-wage increases.

Higher minimum wages also ripple upward to workers who already earn above the minimum. They reduce hardship. They can reduce food insecurity. They can reduce reliance on public assistance. They put money in the pockets of people who will spend it in their communities.

If a business can only survive by paying poverty wages, then the problem is the business model. No one who works full time should be poor. America is rich enough to pay people a living wage. The only thing missing is the political will to make employers do it.

There was widespread public support for extending healthcare subsidies, but the Republican Party opposed that approach, opting instead to reduce them, leading to millions losing their coverage. Even if they were extended, the subsidies are, at best, a much-needed band-aid until a better solution is implemented.

The Democratic Party previously pushed for universal healthcare, as the rest of the world uses, but while there is broad public support for universal healthcare, that support is split between those who believe it should be through private insurance and those who prefer it to be through the government. And overall, the Republican Party still opposes moving toward any universal healthcare system, creating a significant political hurdle.

Even talk of a public option for health insurance is mired in debate. We find ourselves in a sort of healthcare limbo where the problem worsens while no solutions are implemented.

But there is one affordable solution we could enact first to improve the situation.

One of the most important and cost-saving forms of healthcare is preventative care. Discovering illnesses before they worsen makes them easier and less expensive to treat. It reduces hospitalizations and emergency room visits and results in fewer days of missed work. But while everyone can get treatment in an emergency room regardless of their insurance, not everyone has access to the most affordable and effective form of healthcare.

We can change that. We can provide universal, comprehensive primary care for all Americans for less than the requested increase to the military budget.

What is included in this comprehensive care?

• Annual primary care visit

• Preventive screenings

• Vaccines

• Chronic disease management visits

• Follow-ups ordered by a primary care doctor

• Post-hospital discharge follow-up

• Mental health screening

• Pediatric visits

• Pregnancy-related primary care

• Basic mental health integration

• Medication management

• Nutrition counseling

• Basic urgent care for non-emergencies

• Labs and routine diagnostics

• Dental and vision checkups

• A free pair of glasses once per year

• Community health workers for high-risk patients

Dental and vision care are often treated as optional, but they are not optional if you are the person who cannot see well enough to work, drive, read, apply for jobs, or help your child with homework. They are not optional if an untreated dental problem becomes pain, infection, missed work, or an emergency room visit.

Chronic disease management means that an illness that could have ended your career becomes something that is fully manageable. A person who can get their blood pressure treated, diabetes managed, depression screened, or asthma controlled is more likely to keep working, keep earning, and keep supporting their family. Healthcare is not separate from the economy. Health is what allows people to participate in it.

This is real, extensive medical care that can transform lives.

The cost for this type of program would be under $300 billion per year. The choice is not whether we pay for care. We already pay. We pay when untreated diabetes becomes kidney failure. We pay when uncontrolled blood pressure leads to a stroke. We pay when a treatable infection becomes a hospitalization. We pay when someone misses work, loses income, loses insurance, and ends up in medical debt. Universal primary care means we pay earlier, when it’s cheaper, and before people’s lives fall apart.

In 2017, there were 3.5 million hospital stays that cost $34 billion, but were preventable with proper care. And that is an important part of this program: $200 billion in costs could be recouped through fewer emergency room visits, shorter hospital stays, reduced medical debt, and lower private insurance costs, because primary care would no longer be part of their services.

Compare this to the military budget that already costs $1 trillion each year, and the request is to raise it to $1.5 trillion next year. All other nations combined spend $1.9 billion. That’s how close America is getting to outspending the rest of mankind on the ability to wage war. Why can we spend on waging unnecessary wars but not on keeping people healthy, active, and working?

We do not have to solve the entire healthcare system in one bill to make people’s lives dramatically better. We can start with the front door. Give every American access to a doctor, basic urgent care, dental checkups, eye exams, and glasses. Catch illness early. Keep people working. Keep families out of medical debt. Stop waiting until people are sick enough, desperate enough, or poor enough to qualify for help.

America already pays for untreated illness. Universal primary care lets us pay earlier, pay less, and save lives in the process.

The Claim

We often hear that the rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes. This claim is used to argue that wealthy people deserve more tax cuts or that raising taxes on the rich would be unfair.

If you challenge that idea, someone may pull out a chart like this:

At first glance, that sounds convincing.

The top 1% received 20.6% of adjusted gross income and paid 38.4% of federal income taxes. The bottom half received 12.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 3.3% of federal income taxes. So the rich must be overtaxed, right?

No.

The chart only looks at federal income taxes. It does not include payroll taxes, which are deducted from all workers’ paychecks. And it uses adjusted gross income, which excludes much of the wealth gains that make the richest households richer. It ignores the fact that America taxes work more than wealth.

Sources for this section

• Tax Foundation summary of IRS tax year 2023 data: Reports that the top 1% had 20.6% of adjusted gross income and paid 38.4% of federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% had 12.3% of AGI and paid 3.3% of federal income taxes.

• NTUF summary of IRS tax year 2023 data: Also summarizes the 2023 IRS percentile data and gives the top 1% threshold and tax shares.

The Reality

The first warning sign that a major part of the situation is being left out of the “rich pay more than their fair share” argument is that it starts with adjusted gross income and addresses only federal income taxes.

When we compare income taxes and payroll taxes to net-worth gains, the picture changes dramatically.

The bottom half of Americans received just 1.7% of the country’s household net-worth gains in 2023, but paid 3.3% of federal income taxes and about 16.5% of federal payroll taxes.

The top 1% captured 34.7% of household net-worth gains and paid 38.4% of federal income taxes, but only about 6.6% of payroll taxes.

There is a group paying more than its fair share, but it isn’t the wealthy. It is the lowest earners. That is because America prefers to tax work rather than money.

Sources for this section

• Federal Reserve Distributional Financial Accounts: The Fed’s DFA data provides quarterly household wealth by percentile group, including the top 0.1%, the rest of the top 1%, the next 9%, the next 40%, and the bottom half. The Fed describes this as a comprehensive measure of U.S. household wealth by group.

• FRED series for top 1% net worth: FRED lists quarterly net worth held by the top 1% in millions of dollars, sourced from the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts.

• FRED series for bottom 50% net worth: FRED lists quarterly net worth held by the bottom 50%, also sourced from the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts.

• Treasury Office of Tax Analysis distribution table: Treasury’s 2024 current-law distribution table breaks federal tax burden into categories, including individual income taxes and payroll taxes by income group. The payroll-tax shares above are calculated from that table.

When Wealth Is Not Income

Most working-class income comes from getting paid for doing labor. The government is great at taxing paychecks. Your employer reports your wages. Federal income taxes are withheld. Social Security and Medicare taxes come out automatically. At the end of the year, you file taxes to compare what was withheld with what you actually owed.

Wealth works differently.

A large share of wealthy income comes from investments. If you buy stock for $1,000 and later sell it for $10,000, the $9,000 gain is a capital gain. If you sell the investment after holding it for one year or less, it is a short-term capital gain and is generally taxed like ordinary income. But if you sell the investment after holding it for more than a year, it is a long-term capital gain and is taxed at lower rates.

High earners may also owe the Net Investment Income Tax, or NIIT. NIIT is a separate 3.8% tax on certain investment income for people above the income threshold. For single filers, the threshold is $200,000.

So the top federal rate on long-term capital gains is generally 23.8% when NIIT applies. Now compare that to income from work.

Ordinary income tax rates go up to 37%, and wages are also subject to payroll taxes. There is no special 0% tax bracket for wages, the way there is for long-term capital gains. And by the time a single filer’s ordinary taxable income exceeds $50,000, it has reached a 22% tax bracket. Quite a bit higher than how large wealth gains are taxed.

Even for the rich, the tax code does not treat work and wealth the same. Here is a simple example.

Assume a single filer receives $1,000,000 in wages. Now compare that with someone who receives $1,000,000 in long-term capital gains. Using 2026 federal brackets, the standard deduction, no state taxes, and including NIIT where it applies:

Even after including NIIT, $1 million in long-term capital gains can face about $160,000 less in federal tax than $1 million in wages.

If a stock or other asset rises in value but the owner does not sell it, the gain is unrealized. Unrealized gains are not taxed. This makes sense. The owner hasn’t yet received the money from the gains, and the value could rise or fall before they sell it.

Much of the wealth gains of the highest earners are in unrealized capital gains. But they have a trick for using and benefiting from those gains without paying taxes.

Wealthy people can take out a loan against the value of their unrealized capital gains and use that loan to pay their bills, buy things, or even invest further to increase their wealth, without ever paying any income tax. One reason this is worth it is that the interest on the loans is much lower than the tax rate that would be paid on the capital gains.

Even more incredible is that if the loan is used on another investment, the interest for the loan can be deducted from investment income, further reducing their tax burden. And this is exactly what many wealthy people do. Below are some links to great descriptions of this practice, which has sometimes been labeled as “Buy, Borrow, Die”.

We discussed the “Buy” and “Borrow” parts of that strategy. The “Die” part matters too.

When someone dies and passes an appreciated asset to heirs, the asset often receives a stepped-up basis. That means the tax basis is reset to the value at the time of inheritance.

Example:

• Someone buys stock for $1,000.

• They hold it until death, when it is worth $40,000.

• Their heir receives it with a stepped-up basis of $40,000.

• If the heir sells it immediately for $40,000, the $39,000 gain is not taxed as capital gains income.

That means the wealthy can grow their wealth, borrow against it, transfer to heirs, and avoid income tax on any of it.

Work is taxed now. Wealth can often be taxed later, taxed less, or sometimes not taxed as income at all.

Sources for this section

• DC Fiscal Policy Institute “Buy, Borrow, Die” rundown

• Yale Budget Lab “Buy-Borrow-Die”

• IRS Topic 559: Explains the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax and the income thresholds, including $200,000 for single filers.

• IRS 2026 inflation adjustments: Lists 2026 ordinary income tax brackets and the $16,100 standard deduction for single filers.

• 2026 capital gains tax brackets: Kiplinger’s 2026 capital-gains tax guide lists the long-term capital gains thresholds, including 0% up to $49,450 for single filers and 20% beginning above $545,500.

When Income Is Hidden

The rich have numerous ways to hide their income to avoid paying taxes. Everything from loopholes, loans, deductions, charities, and offshore accounts.

There is the yacht deduction. The way this works is that someone can buy a nice, expensive yacht and, as long as they then charter it out to profit from it, they can deduct the entire cost of the yacht from their income the same year they buy it. So when a rich person does this and buys a $5 million yacht, their income is treated as $5 million lower than what it actually is.

Then there are huge charitable donations, which sound like a good thing, and can be, but some are simply shady ways to protect wealth.

Billionaire Charles Johnson donated a mansion to his own private foundation to gain $38 million in tax savings. The agreement was supposed to be that in exchange for these tax breaks, the mansion would be open to the public 40 hours each week. Instead, a few dozen lottery winners were allowed a 2-hour tour on Wednesday each week. It was not actually a gift to the public. It was just a tax haven often used for other, non-public events.

Over $1 trillion worth of real estate, artwork, stocks, and other assets are held in these charitable trusts. But many are not truly charitable.

There is a ProPublica article that discusses these foundations and includes a bit on Ken Xie, who had received $30 million in tax breaks from his charitable foundation. This foundation bought a $3 million home from his girlfriend and then allowed her to continue living there. Xie lived there part of the time, too.

The Trump Foundation was shut down for misconduct, and Donald Trump was forced to pay $2 million. Sometimes the abuse of the system is caught, but even then, prosecution can be lengthy, complicated, and expensive.

There are offshore trusts and shell companies used to hide income, some of it legal, some of it not. I talked about the yacht deduction. There are other clever ways to convert personal expenses, such as jets and cars, into business expenses through passthrough LLCs.

The wealthy hide their money, reclassify income, and do everything they can to avoid taxes. So whenever someone claims that the wealthy are paying more than their fair share, know that they’re hiding large portions of their share altogether.

Sources for this section

• ProPublica article on charitable trusts

• Press release on the Trump Foundation verdict.

Payroll Taxes Expose The Trick

Those who claim the rich pay more than their fair share intentionally leave out payroll taxes because it exposes how the tax burden is actually greatest on the lowest earners.

Payroll taxes are the taxes workers see every paycheck. They fund Social Security and Medicare. For many low- and middle-income workers, payroll taxes are one of the biggest federal taxes they pay.

The bottom half of Americans paid about 16.5% of federal payroll taxes, according to the Treasury’s distribution data. The top 1% paid about 6.6%. That is a very different picture from the income-tax chart. There are two major reasons. First, Social Security taxes are capped. In 2026, only the first $184,500 of wages are subject to Social Security tax.

Second, payroll taxes apply to work, not wealth.

Capital gains are not subject to Social Security payroll taxes. Unrealized gains are not. Loans against assets are not.

Medicare is different from Social Security because its tax cap was removed in 1993. High-wage workers also pay an additional Medicare tax above the income threshold. But Medicare payroll taxes still mainly apply to wages and self-employment income. They do not apply to capital gains.

There’s another trick the wealthy use to avoid Medicare taxes: exploiting a well-known loophole that has been abused for decades, one that Congress has backed down from fixing under pressure from the rich.

By creating a limited partnership through which money can be funneled, self-employment tax can be avoided through a loophole created while trying to stop the abuse of Social Security by government employees.

This loophole wasn’t used much until the tax cap on Medicare was removed, at which point the rich began looking for a way to avoid the larger tax. This article by ProPublica discusses the full scheme and even highlights a case where a person could form a limited partnership himself, with each partner being a different business he owned.

These are the lengths the wealthy go to in order to avoid paying their taxes.

Sources for this section

• ProPublica Medicare tax loophole: exposes limited partnership schemes to avoid paying Medicare taxes.

• SSA contribution and benefit base: The Social Security taxable maximum is $184,500 in 2026, and the OASDI tax rate is 6.2% for employees and 6.2% for employers.

• IRS NIIT explanation: NIIT is a 3.8% tax on certain net investment income above the income threshold, not a standard payroll tax on all wealth gains.

• Treasury distribution table: Used to calculate payroll-tax shares by income group.

Low Earners Are Not The Freeloaders

It is true that 31% of income tax filers do not pay any federal income tax, but this isn’t because they’re freeloading off the system. It is because they don’t have any money to give.

Just like how businesses only pay income tax on profits, not money that was used to operate the business, people get to exempt a certain amount of their income from federal income tax needed to live. We’ve acknowledged that it costs a certain amount of money simply to exist, so the government doesn’t tax you on that small amount.

These people struggling to exist, still pay payroll taxes, so it is wrong to claim they don’t pay taxes. There are also sales tax, state and local taxes, and tariffs, which are taxes. To suggest that someone who is being taxed in so many ways is a freeloader is shameful slander.

But what do you call it when the richest 25 Americans see their wealth increase over 4 years by over $400 billion but pay only $13.6 billion in income taxes, a 3.4% rate? Or when someone who increases their net worth by amost $4 billion in a year ends up paying zero federal income tax?

That’s what ProPublica found when looking through tax records of the wealthiest Americans, linked below.

One of the more shocking discoveries was that Jeff Bezos not only paid zero federal income tax in 2011, but he also claimed and received a $4,000 child tax credit while his net worth was around $18 billion. The government giving a billionaire money? Who is the freeloader?

America has a progressive income tax. Someone making billions isn’t supposed to be paying a lower rate than a teacher, firefighter, plumber, or any other hard-working American. The wealthy aren’t paying the proper tax rate because a lot of their wealth isn’t even being taxed.

Sources for this section

• ProPublica overview: Explains how billionaires can pay little or sometimes nothing in federal income taxes compared with their wealth growth.

• ProPublica IRS Files: ProPublica reported that the 25 wealthiest Americans saw their wealth rise by $401 billion from 2014 to 2018 while paying $13.6 billion in federal income taxes, which ProPublica calculated as a 3.4% “true tax rate” relative to wealth gains.

Pay Workers More

There is one obvious answer to the complaint that low earners do not pay enough federal income tax:

Pay workers more.

If workers earned more, more of them would owe federal income tax, and fewer would need help for federal assistance. Higher wages increase tax revenue, reduce pressure on safety-net programs, and boost the economy through consumer spending.

The problem is not that low-income workers are undertaxed. The problem is that too many workers are underpaid. The 2026 Dayforce/Living Wage Institute report found that half of full-time U.S. workers do not earn a livable wage. An increase of 5% since 2021. So when someone says low earners should pay more income tax, the answer is simple:

Pay them more.

Sources for this section

• Dayforce/Living Wage Institute: study on how many workers are paid livable wages.

The Stock Market Belongs Mostly To The Rich

Like trickle-down economics, the claims that lower tax rates on investments held over one year (long-term capital gains) increase corporate investment and economic growth turned out to be false. And, like trickle-down economics, the policy mainly benefits the rich.

The top 1% own half of the wealth invested in stocks and mutual funds, the bottom 50% just 1%. In plain language: the top 1% owns about half of the money Americans have invested in the markets, while the bottom half owns almost none of it.

Lower tax rates on long-term capital gains allow the rich to pay lower taxes.

Sources for this section

• FRED/Federal Reserve corporate equities and mutual fund shares: FRED provides the Federal Reserve DFA data series for corporate equities and mutual fund shares by wealth group, including the bottom 50%, top 1%, and top 0.1%.

• Federal Reserve DFA overview: Explains that the dataset breaks household wealth into percentile groups and includes wealth composition.

How To Fix It

The rich are not paying more than their fair share. They’re not even paying their share because large portions of their income are taxed at a lower rate, and much of their wealth gains are not taxed at all.

To fix that, we need to tax all money fairly, not tax work more than wealth.

1. Tax capital gains like income

Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends should be taxed at ordinary income tax rates for high-income households.

2. End stepped-up basis

Capital gains should not disappear at death.

If wealthy people can hold assets until death and pass them to heirs with the gains erased for income-tax purposes, then the capital-gains tax becomes optional for generational wealth.

End stepped-up basis, or tax large unrealized gains at death.

3. Limit buy-borrow-die

Ultra-wealthy households should not be able to live off loans against appreciated assets forever while avoiding capital-gains taxes.

Borrowing against large appreciated assets should be treated as a taxable event.

4. Make payroll taxes fairer

Lift or eliminate the Social Security wage cap.

Right now, a worker making $60,000 pays Social Security tax on every dollar of wages, while someone making $1 million in wages stops paying Social Security tax after the first $184,500.

5. Apply Medicare taxes more consistently

High-income business and investment income should not be able to slip around Medicare taxes through clever structures.

If ordinary workers cannot opt out of Medicare taxes, wealthy business owners and financiers should not be able to either.

6. Fund enforcement

A tax system that lets the rich use complex structures requires an IRS capable of auditing them.

Defunding tax enforcement is effectively a tax cut for people wealthy enough to hide behind complexity.

The worst part is that inflation is now rising faster than wages. Real average hourly earnings fell last month, meaning paychecks are buying less. Life is getting more expensive, and Americans are falling behind.

Crude oil production was hit by retaliatory strikes across the Gulf region in the early days of the fighting, and the Strait of Hormuz was closed, disrupting one of the world's most important energy supply routes.

But gas prices were only the beginning.

Higher oil prices mean higher diesel and jet fuel prices. Diesel powers much of the transportation system. It moves raw materials to factories, finished goods to warehouses, and products to stores and consumers. When diesel prices rise, costs rise. Jet fuel has pushed airfare higher as well. The strain is so great that an American airline declared bankruptcy, citing high fuel prices, and immediately ceased operations.

Oil is also used in petrochemicals, plastics, packaging, and countless industrial products. That means the war does not just affect what people pay at the pump. It affects the cost of making and moving the goods people buy every day.

The same pattern is showing up in food. A large amount of fertilizer moves through global shipping routes affected by the war, and higher fertilizer costs are adding pressure on farms. Fruits and vegetables are now up 6.1% over the past year, far above overall inflation.

There are also disruptions that most people never think of. Helium is one of them. With a major share of global supply disrupted, healthcare equipment that relies on helium becomes more expensive to operate and maintain. Most Americans will not see a line item labeled “helium” on a bill, but they will feel it through a healthcare system that is already becoming more expensive as cuts to healthcare subsidies go into effect.

That is the problem with this war. Its costs do not stay on the battlefield. They move through energy, food, transportation, healthcare, and consumer prices. And this is happening in an economy where households were already pushed to the brink with no room to absorb it.

Household debt has climbed to nearly $19 trillion. Credit card balances remain at record highs. Many families were already relying on debt, delayed purchases, and shrinking savings before this latest inflation spike hit.

At the same time, Americans are paying more in taxes while receiving less in return.

A Yale Budget Lab estimate found the average household is paying roughly $1,500 more because of tariffs. Meanwhile, the average tax refund this year only increased by a few hundred dollars. All of the claims that your taxes were being reduced were false. The taxes were shuffled around, and you ended up paying more.

The government is effectively taking more money out of working people’s pockets while reducing services and support. Healthcare subsidies were cut. Food assistance was cut. Affordable housing programs were cut. Environmental and Climate programs were cut. Green Energy funding was cut. Yet despite all of this, the deficit and debt are growing even faster than before due to major tax breaks for the wealthy and tax loopholes for corporations.

The job market is offering no relief. April added 115,000 jobs, but previous months were revised down by 16,000. Job growth in 2026 remains slightly better than last year but far weaker than in 2024. Unemployment has slowly risen, and labor participation rates have decreased. America has the largest share of men not working since 1948, something so few people have been discussing that it has been dubbed “the quiet catastrophe".

The Federal Reserve is now in a worse position, too. When inflation was cooling, rate cuts looked more likely. With inflation rising again, the Fed has less room to cut interest rates and may even raise them. That means higher costs can remain in place for mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and small businesses. Families are getting squeezed by prices on one side and borrowing costs on the other.

There is also the direct cost of the war itself. The price tag has already risen to around $60 billion. That is more than enough to have covered two more years of federal healthcare subsidies that were cut because we were told America could not afford them.

That is the choice being made.

If the war ended tomorrow, prices would not immediately return to normal. Supply chains take time to repair. Shipping routes have to reopen. Inventories and transportation costs take time to work their way back through the economy. Americans saw this after the pandemic, when disruptions continued affecting prices long after the original crisis passed.

For now, there is no clear end in sight. Congress could end this war today. It has the power to do so. But Congress has refused to use its authority over war, just as it refused to fully confront illegal tariffs that raised prices on consumers.

That is why the midterms matter.

Congress is supposed to represent the public, control spending, and decide when America goes to war. If lawmakers refuse to exercise those responsibilities, voters have the power to replace them with people who will.

November is coming, and it is time to make a change.

It was an illegal war from the start, and it remains illegal even by the justifications given.

Going to war is a power that the Constitution bestows solely upon Congress to ensure debate, discussion, and public views are considered before sending the American people to war. The reason it took so long for the United States to join the Second World War is that the public was against it, and Congress wouldn’t authorize it.

Since then, Presidents have increasingly bypassed that power by claiming that their activities are anything other than war, using terms like “special military intervention” and “armed response”.

After the presidential overreach during the Vietnam War, particularly the secret bombings of Cambodia, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution to place more formal restrictions on how presidents can utilize the military without Congressional approval. Congress was so united in this effort that it overcame a veto by then-President Richard Nixon.

This resolution gives the president the authority to deploy the military to address imminent threats and emergencies. It requires the President to brief Congress on the action he took within 48 hours and then allows 60 days of conflict before military forces must be withdrawn if Congress has not passed an authorization for the use of military force. Here is the specific text of the resolution regarding the 60-day timeframe:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

There was no imminent threat. Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon. US intelligence confirmed this in their 2025 threat assessment. This report is available to the public. Here is what it says:

“We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003”

The report also warned that a conflict in Iran would cause it to disrupt supply lines in the Strait of Hormuz and attack other countries in the region, despite this administration claiming that Iran’s response was a surprise:

“Iran’s large conventional forces are capable of inflicting substantial damage to an attacker, executing regional strikes, and disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Not only was Iran not working on a nuclear weapon, but the Trump administration claimed the bombings in June that utilized stealth bombers with bunker buster munitions had destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. Obliterated was the term he used.

Intelligence reports also concluded that Iran was not planning to attack US forces, only that it would retaliate if attacked.

All of this means Trump was required to get approval from Congress before starting the war. He did not, and Congress refused to hold him accountable. Today marks 60 days, and the war continues on in violation of the War Powers Resolution. Congress has not declared war, has not legally extended the 60-day limit, and the US is not facing an armed attack.

Not only has Congress not approved an authorization, but they left town as quickly as they could yesterday to avoid dealing with it.

The Iran War is the most unpopular war America has engaged in; support is even lower than for the Vietnam War, which, up until this conflict, had been the most regretted war in US history.

Republicans want to avoid the fallout from this disaster. The midterms are going to be a major repudiation for the Grand Old Party, and no one wants to be on the record supporting this poorly planned failure of a war.

Republicans are also too cowardly to stand against Trump and face his wrath of late-night tweets. So they’re avoiding dealing with the issue for as long as possible, even as Trump violates the law.

There is no clear goal for this war, no exit strategy, and gas has skyrocketed to the highest cost in four years. Inflation is at its highest level in 2 or 3 years, depending on the metric used, and continues to rise. All of this is because of a war that never needed to happen.

Without a Congress that is willing to do its job, the illegal war will continue.

It is up to voters to show how unacceptable this is. Voters must remove from office every politician who refuses to stand up to the president and do their job. The midterms are coming.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf

At the start of the war, it was claimed that Iran was planning to attack the US first, which is why America bombed the nation. The administration later admitted that Iran only planned to attack in response to being attacked. Then there was the claim about freeing the Iranian people from their oppression. Bombing an elementary school, bridges, and threatening to blow up every power plant in the country shows it was never about the Iranian people.

Another claim was that the attacks were necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, something we’ve heard was imminent since the 1990s. US intelligence said that Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon, and we had supposedly destroyed their nuclear capabilities with bunker-busting bombs just eight months earlier.

And the final reason was that it was about regime change, but the Trump administration has given up on that idea and is attempting to negotiate with those in charge. Those negotiations continue to go nowhere, despite Trump claiming he’s already won and the peace deal is practically agreed to. At the same time, Trump has extended the deadline for Iran to agree to a peace deal five times, each time issuing threats, before giving up and saying there was no rush.

While all of this has been going on, the US has burned through critical munitions, leaving us with shortages that will leave America unable to properly respond if major conflicts break out elsewhere. Analysts aren’t sure we would even have the resources to defend Taiwan if China invaded. And reports indicate it could take six years to replenish these stockpiles, weakening America’s ability to project force around the globe.

Those shortages are also causing America to stop military deliveries to allies that have already purchased arms. This is increasing tensions and prompting allies to look elsewhere for new deals. This will likely have a long-term negative effect on the United States ability to obtain new military deals with NATO nations.

Despite all of the bombings, threats, and negotiations, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and reports indicate it could take up to six months to clear the mines AFTER peace is achieved. That means ongoing disruption to trade routes and higher prices for the rest of the year.

After a brief moment of gas prices reducing by a few cents from hopes that a peace deal was just around the corner, prices are rising once again. Inflation spiked last month to the highest level in years, and wholesale inflation is even higher this month, suggesting we will continue to see rising prices in the months to come.

Trump never had a proper plan heading into this war. He thought he could bomb Iran for a few days and then they’d turn around and agree to peace. Instead, they fought back, they found ways to create economic pain for a country they can’t defeat militarily. Iran has been able to show the world the trouble it can cause when attacked, while the United States looks incapable of using its military might to decisively win a war against a weaker opponent.

In the end, America will be lucky to get a deal with Iran that is as good as the nuclear deal we had previously. The deal that Trump tore up in his first term. We didn’t go to war, lose 13 servicemembers, have hundreds more wounded, and have our military bases throughout the Gulf attacked to achieve that deal, because we had leaders who knew how to negotiate.

Meanwhile, Iran, which was not pursuing a nuclear weapon, learned it doesn’t need one to be taken seriously. It repeatedly penetrated Israel’s Iron Dome. It attacked the energy infrastructure of other Middle East nations. It showed it has the capacity to disrupt global markets to a degree where US alliances are fracturing, US citizens are outraged at their government, and the West’s adversaries are empowered.

America may end up with a deal limiting Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon, but in exchange, Iran showed the world how dangerous it can be.

But that is only a part of the story. A larger refund does not necessarily mean that you came out ahead. For many Americans, it just means you paid more somewhere else.

When Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill last year, they promised to keep more money in the pockets of everyday Americans. They described it as the largest tax cut in history, and that’s where the spin begins. It was not the largest tax cut in history. It was mostly an extension of the 2017 tax cuts that were set to expire, with smaller additions layered on top.

Those extra tax cuts were gimmicks, designed to create talking points for elections instead of any meaningful change.

Take the “no tax on tips” provision. It sounds nice, but only about 2.5% of US workers are tipped workers. Of those, nearly 40% earn too little to pay federal income tax, which means the policy does nothing for them. And anyone who does get the benefit still pays payroll and state taxes on their tips.

“No tax on overtime” is a similar situation. Only around 15% of US workers qualify for overtime pay, and only 6% regularly work it. Roughly 90% of Americans will never benefit from this provision. And, like tips, overtime pay is still subject to payroll and state taxes.

While those income tax changes did increase the average refund by about $350, other taxes took that money away.

Last year, tariffs, an additional tax on goods, cost the average household $1,000. That more than offsets the increase in refunds. Unlike income taxes, which are structured to place a larger burden on higher earners, tariffs are regressive. Lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods, so they feel the impact more directly. These combined policies mean people are falling behind, not getting ahead.

That tradeoff is no accident. Analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that these policy changes “will increase taxes for most Americans, significantly expand income inequality, and add trillions to the national debt, while delivering substantial tax cuts to high-income households, corporations, and foreign investors.” Middle-income households are projected to pay $900 more in taxes this year, while the very wealthy will receive massive cuts.

There is a pattern to the design of these tax changes. The provisions aimed at the working and middle-class Americans are minor and temporary. The tax breaks on tips and overtime expire in 2028. This is what happened with the 2017 tax law as well, where individual tax cuts were made to expire while corporate tax cuts were made permanent. This approach, over the last several decades, has created major compounding benefits for those at the top, while doing nothing but saddling everyone else with higher national debt. Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect in 2018, the national debt has nearly doubled, going from $20 trillion to $39 trillion today.

If the goal were to genuinely help low and middle-income earners, there are easy, effective solutions that would apply to everyone. Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would provide direct benefits to workers across a broad range of incomes. Unlike deductions, tax credits can increase refunds even for those who do not owe federal income tax, making them far more effective for lower-income households than narrowly targeted tax exclusions.

Raising the federal minimum wage would also have a wider and more lasting impact. It has not increased since 2009 and no longer reflects the cost of living in any state. Research continues to show that higher minimum wages can raise earnings without significant job losses. A recent UC Berkeley study found that a $20 minimum wage for fast-food workers in California had only a minimal effect on prices, increasing the price of a $4 menu item by just 6 cents, while raising wages and without causing job losses. Policies like these improve the lives of tens of millions of workers rather than a small subset.

There is also a larger issue lurking behind all of this. Tax cuts aren’t free. They reduce government revenue, and when they are not offset, they drive deficits higher. Those deficits are used later to justify cuts to programs that lower-income households rely on, including food assistance and healthcare. At the same time, other areas of spending, such as the military, continue to grow, shifting the balance of who benefits and who bears the cost.

Tax cuts sound great. They’re easy to sell because they promise more money in your pocket. But the truth is that unless you’re already wealthy, these tax cuts are little more than a temporary distraction that does nothing to improve your life. They are more than offset by higher costs elsewhere. Most Americans are left paying more overall, while receiving fewer benefits in return.

https://itep.org/new-from-itep-trump-tax-policies-raise-costs-for-most-americans-while-delivering-trillion-dollar-benefits-to-the-wealthy/

https://irle.berkeley.edu/publications/working-papers/effects-of-a-20-minimum-wage-evidence-from-granular-data-on-wages-employment-and-prices/

The case they make is built on misinformation, bad logic, and a misunderstanding of how the alliance actually works. Leaving NATO would not make America stronger or richer. It would weaken American power, reduce our influence, and make the world more dangerous in ways that would ultimately find their way to our shores.

The new grievance from some conservatives is that NATO countries did not join the United States in its war against Iran. But NATO is a defensive alliance. Its core principle is Article 5: an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all. That clause has been invoked exactly one time in NATO’s history, after the United States was attacked on 9/11.

NATO nations do not have an obligation to join fellow members in wars they start, such as when the US and Israel launched a bombing campaign against Iran at the end of February. In past conflicts, NATO members have sometimes joined the United States through separate coalitions and prior coordination outside of the alliance. Trump did not coordinate with, or even inform, other NATO nations about the attack against Iran beforehand. This war also followed recently after the US had threatened to invade and take over Greenland, which is a territory of Denmark, a fellow NATO ally.

Another false narrative is that the United States has paid trillions of dollars to NATO while other countries freeload. That is false. The “trillions” people cite are really total U.S. defense spending, which is fully separate from NATO’s common budgets. NATO’s common-funded budgets are much smaller, up to about $6.2 billion for 2026. Under NATO’s current cost-share formula, the United States and Germany each pay 15% of those common budgets. In other words, America and Germany pay the same share toward NATO, even though the U.S. economy is six times larger than Germany’s. That alone tells you America’s burden is not what critics claim.

Anti-NATO arguments take U.S. military spending, pretend it is money handed over to NATO, and then claim America is being robbed. But if the United States left NATO tomorrow, that would not eliminate the U.S. defense budget. America would still maintain its military and, based on the budget requests coming out of DC, would continue massively increasing that spending. Leaving NATO wouldn’t save America money. It would leave the United States with the same massive military costs and fewer allies helping extend American power.

The last misleading point concerns defense spending as a share of GDP. NATO has long had a guideline that members should spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, but it is a guideline, not a legally binding requirement for dues payments. Even so, all NATO members met or exceeded that 2% benchmark in 2025. At the top was Poland at 4.48% of GDP. The United States ranked seventh at 3.22%. NATO’s new target is 5% by 2035. Some nations are almost at that spending level, but not the US, leaving little room for complaining.

With the misinformation cleared up, let’s discuss the ways NATO benefits the United States.

First, NATO multiplies American power. The U.S. does not have to maintain global leadership alone because it works through an alliance of 32 countries, sharing planning, infrastructure, logistics, and intelligence. American power extends farther because of allied bases, militaries, and coordination. NATO also helps create a much broader intelligence picture through consultations, intelligence-sharing, and joint threat assessment. That makes the U.S. stronger than it would be on its own.

Second, NATO lowers the cost of American world leadership. The alliance allows the United States to share burdens with other wealthy democracies rather than trying to deter threats on its own. European allies and Canada have increased defense spending sharply in recent years. NATO says its combined defense spending reached more than $574 billion in 2025, and the U.S. share of total alliance defense spending has fallen as other members have increased theirs. That is what burden-sharing looks like.

Third, NATO has real economic value. The alliance has preserved a stable Europe, and stable allies make better trade partners and better places for investment than a continent shaped by insecurity and conflict. Allied defense spending also feeds back into the United States. SIPRI found that 58% of major arms imports by NATO’s European members in 2021–2025 came from the United States. NATO is not a weapons sales program, but allied military spending often supports the American industrial base.

Fourth, NATO helps prevent the kind of major war that the United States would get dragged into. That is one of the alliance’s core purposes. NATO was created not only to deter outside threats but also to help prevent renewed instability and militarism in Europe. That stability has been one of the great strategic bargains in modern history. It gave the United States a more secure Atlantic world, more reliable allies, and a much stronger position from which to project influence globally.

Fifth, NATO makes American diplomacy more effective. Sanctions, coordinated pressure, and deterrence carry more weight when they are backed by a bloc of major allies rather than by Washington acting alone. It is one reason adversaries like Russia benefit when Americans start talking themselves into abandoning the alliance.

Contrary to the complaints, US involvement in NATO is not charity requiring other nations to be beholden to everything we demand of them. It is one of the clearest examples of the United States gaining more from an alliance than it pays into it. America gets greater military reach, extensive intelligence networks, stronger trade relationships, decisive diplomacy, and a stable, prosperous Europe. In return, it pays a modest share of NATO’s common budgets while maintaining a defense budget it would keep without the alliance.

If the United States left NATO, it would be an unforced error. America would lose influence, creating an opening for Russia and China to expand theirs. The United States became the leader of the Western world not by isolating itself, but by building institutions and alliances that amplified its strength. Abandoning NATO would mean giving away one of America’s greatest strategic advantages.

https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2026/global-arms-flows-jump-nearly-10-cent-european-demand-soars

“It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.

You can’t do it on a federal level. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

He followed that up by releasing a budget request that seeks to raise military spending by around $500 billion in 2027, bringing it to a total of $1.5 trillion, while also adding more money for immigration detention on top of the previous large increases for ICE and CBP.

At the same time, the budget calls for major cuts to renewable energy programs, climate research, NASA, agriculture, housing, health programs, education research, civil rights enforcement in education, and housing assistance programs, including cutting a program that helps people in need pay for home heating. AmeriCorps would be eliminated. Rental assistance would be weakened and capped for many adults. Homelessness programs would be cut so deeply that as many as 170,000 people could be at risk of losing their homes.

Budgets are moral documents, and this one shows that the President’s priorities are all wrong. Near limitless spending on waging foreign wars while cutting programs that are needed to address the struggles of unaffordable housing, healthcare, and childcare.

Social Security exists because the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to tax and spend for the general welfare of the nation. That understanding was once much clearer in American politics. Over time, it has been pushed aside in favor of a much narrower vision of government, one that treats support for the workers who grow our food, build our houses, and fix our cars as excess but rarely asks the same questions about ever-expanding military spending.

That shift has had consequences.

The minimum wage was left to decay into a poverty wage. Social Security was allowed to weaken, and its reserves to run dry. Healthcare funding has been cut so far that hospitals have shut down. The meager $6 a day for food assistance has faced cuts even as living costs soared. Meanwhile, there has been no serious movement to restrain the growth of defense spending. This year, military spending rose above $1 trillion. Now the president wants to pile another half trillion on top of that, while the Pentagon prepares to ask for an additional $200 billion to cover the costs of the new war in Iran.

Even more maddening is that many of the programs we’re told our nation can’t afford would save the country money.

Hospital administrative costs have exploded and, in 2023, were twice the cost of the care provided to patients. Administrative costs for health insurance almost doubled over the past decade, reaching $131 billion in 2024. A system built around universal coverage allows for lower overhead and stronger price negotiation. The result is healthcare that costs less, covers more people, improves outcomes, and reduces wait times. There is no practical reason to prevent this, but there are political ones.

Profit-making in healthcare depends on preserving the current system. Insurance companies have donated almost $500 million to political campaigns over the past five years, and the broader healthcare industry spent roughly $1 billion lobbying Congress in 2025 alone. Politicians are paid to not support the people.

We see similar issues in education.

One of the clearest ways to lower costs for families while improving long-term outcomes is universal Pre-K. It allows more parents to work. It reduces dependence on federal aid over time and improves children's life outcomes. All of which results in the program paying for itself over time.

The solutions to reduce hardship, expand opportunity, and lower long-term public costs are not mysteries. They have been known for decades. But billions of dollars are spent to block them, and that effort has been so effective that many Americans now accept as fact the idea that the federal government cannot do what it clearly can, and absolutely should.

What America could do for its citizens, the prosperity it could create, makes this military spending even harder to defend.

The proposed $500 billion increase in spending could fund:

• Universal Pre-K for 3 and 4-year-olds

• Universal low-cost childcare for 0-2 year olds

• Federal paid parental leave program

• Free school lunches and breakfasts for all

• Free College, Trade Schools, and Apprenticeships

Altogether, those investments would total roughly $183 billion to $233 billion a year. That is less than half of the proposed increase to military spending. Even covering last year’s $160 billion Social Security Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance trust fund deficit would still keep the total below the increase in spending.

Money is not being withheld because the country cannot afford to improve people’s lives. It is being directed elsewhere, often wastefully.

The federal government can spend far better to support the country than it does today. It can invest in families, wages, housing, food, retirement security, and education. It can strengthen the floor beneath ordinary people instead of pouring ever more money into war.

There are larger reforms worth debating, including whether the many different support programs should be replaced with something simpler and more direct. There are also easier steps that should have happened long ago, such as raising the federal minimum wage over the next five years until it reaches a truly livable level.

But those conversations won’t happen if we keep pretending that caring for the general welfare of the nation is somehow outside the role of the federal government, when it is specifically defined in our Constitution in the same clause, even the same sentence, as providing for the common defense.

The country is not protected when families cannot afford childcare. It is not protected when people lose housing assistance, when hospitals shut down, when children go hungry, or when workers are paid wages that keep them in poverty. National security goes far beyond missiles, drones, and guns. True national security requires a thriving, prosperous public.

It is time to stop spending trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars and start investing in America’s workers and families. Most importantly, we need a Congress that understands this, and if they refuse to listen, that is what the midterms are for.

Workers are trapped.

Savings are falling. Credit card debt is at record highs. Hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts are on the rise. For the first time in Gallup’s survey history, struggling workers outnumbered thriving ones.

The problem isn’t just that life has become more expensive. It is that the economy isn’t offering a path to something better. America needs a plan to turn this around.

China faced a version of this problem a decade ago.

By 2015, its economic growth was slowing. Debt was rising. Lower-end manufacturing was moving to even cheaper labor markets. And China depended heavily on imports for critical high-tech components. The model that had powered China’s rise was no longer enough to carry it forward.

China’s leaders recognized that its economy needed to change. Part of the inspiration came from other countries’ efforts to modernize, including Germany’s Industry 4.0 initiative, which aimed to drive a modern industrial revolution. China moved in the same direction, launching the Made in China 2025 initiative.

Its purpose was to shift China away from relying mainly on export-driven industry using low-cost labor and toward innovation, advanced manufacturing, and domestic strength in future-focused technologies. The targeted sectors included robotics, aerospace, electric vehicles, biotech, advanced information technology, rail, and new energy equipment.

A decade later, China is now the world’s largest producer of electric vehicles. It controls a large share of battery supply chains. It dominates solar panel production and has rapidly expanded renewable energy across its own grid. It built the world’s largest high-speed rail network and exports rail and infrastructure systems across the globe. It has also become a major force in industrial robotics and commercial drones.

China still has weaknesses. It relies on foreign components in parts of aerospace and trails the United States in the most advanced microchips. But it made major gains across many of the industries most likely to shape the global economy in the decades ahead.

When a country expands into growing higher-value industries, it creates more room for skilled jobs, stronger supplier networks, and better wages. It generates upward mobility. Workers move into sectors with rising demand rather than being left to compete for shrinking opportunities in industries facing decline.

That is what American workers are missing right now. The United States is facing its own version of this choice, but instead of building a consistent long-term strategy, the government has wasted years on half-measures, trade wars, and political fights over technologies that are moving forward with or without us.

The slogan “drill, drill, drill” has led to a refocusing on fossil fuels at a time when they are becoming the industries of the past. Coal has already declined significantly. Oil demand is declining in advanced economies and will begin declining globally within a few years. Natural gas is expected to plateau soon after. Fossil fuels remain a significant part of the economy, but their importance will fade further with each passing year.

America needs a strategy that is clear, practical, and focused on where the world is headed. That means investment in rare-earth mineral processing, batteries, robotics, advanced manufacturing, renewables, electric vehicles, and biotech. It means rebuilding domestic supplier networks instead of waiting until a crisis exposes how dependent we have become on rivals and adversaries.

These investments also need to survive changes in political power. America had opportunities in solar, and opportunities to move earlier and more aggressively in energy storage and supply chains. Treating electric vehicles, renewable energy, and other emerging industries as partisan symbols does not stop those markets from growing. It simply means more of the jobs, expertise, and production will be elsewhere.

That is why the most important investment is in American workers.

As jobs in older technology continue to decline, newer, better-paying jobs will require different skills, certifications, and training. If America wants workers to move into the future economy, then it has to build the bridge to get there.

Offer free training to workers displaced by industrial change. Expand apprenticeships. Partner with employers and community colleges. Create clear pathways into technical and skilled careers for younger workers trying to find their place and for older workers whose industries are fading beneath them.

Investment in future industries is not just about beating China. It is about whether workers will have access to the kinds of jobs that can support the American Dream.

This requires building an economy that creates new opportunities instead of forcing people to cling to the scraps of the past. It means stronger wages, more resilience, and reducing dependence on the rest of the world for critical technologies. It means choosing to compete in the markets of the future instead of trying to squeeze a few more years out of the past.

The United States still has the talent, capital, and workforce to achieve this. What it lacks is focus. If we want American workers to share in that prosperous future, we need to invest in it.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/703280/worker-thriving-declines-job-market-pessimism-grows.aspx

Prices have risen sharply in recent weeks following the conflict with Iran. Regular gas is approaching $4 a gallon nationwide, while diesel is already above $5.

If you drive about an hour each day, you’ll spend roughly $3,000 a year on gas at $4 a gallon. That’s an increase of almost $1,000 compared to before the recent spike. It may not seem like a crisis on its own, but gas is an unavoidable necessity that is deeply tied to the rest of the economy.

Let’s start with the basics.

Financial experts generally recommend keeping total transportation costs between 10–15% of take-home pay. That includes gas, insurance, loan payments, maintenance, and repairs.

The median personal income is around $45,000. At $3,000 a year, gas alone can approach 10% of take-home pay for many households. At the same time, automotive maintenance and repair costs have been rising faster than wages in recent years, putting additional pressure on already tight budgets.

The burden is not evenly distributed. Roughly half of all workers fall below the median income, and those who live in suburban and rural areas often drive longer distances and have fewer transportation options, so higher gas prices take up a larger share of their income.

Unlike many other expenses, fuel costs are difficult to reduce in the short term. Most people can’t quickly change where they live, how far they commute, or what kind of vehicle they drive.

These rising gas prices are happening at a time when a large share of full-time workers struggle to consistently cover basic costs like housing, food, healthcare, and transportation. The Urban Institute finds that almost half of American households lack enough income to reach long-term financial stability.

We can see this strain in the data.

Total outstanding credit card debt has continued to rise since the pandemic, reaching a record $1.28 trillion at the end of 2025. Personal savings rates have fallen from 7.5% in 2019 to around 3.5% today. Hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts have also reached record highs, 3x higher than pre-pandemic levels.

The Federal Reserve has found that a large share of Americans would struggle to cover a $400 emergency expense, meaning that the only way to afford an additional $1,000 in gas costs is to take on more debt or draw more from savings and retirement accounts.

That is the direct impact of higher gas prices. The indirect effects are even broader as higher fuel costs raise the price of nearly everything.

Raw materials have to be transported to factories. Finished goods move from warehouses to stores, then to consumers. Each step depends on transportation, much of it powered by diesel.

When fuel costs rise, those increases compound across the supply chain. Even products that don’t rely directly on oil become more expensive as transportation costs feed into final prices.

And the timing adds additional pressure.

Wholesale inflation data for last month came in higher than expected. These costs often show up in consumer prices in the months that follow, and those figures were measured before the recent increase in fuel prices.

These higher prices haven’t been felt by consumers yet, but they will be soon enough, and that will impact the broader economy.

The United States is largely a consumer-driven economy, relying on consistent spending to sustain growth. As essential costs like gas rise, households adjust by cutting back elsewhere.

Consumer sentiment is already low, lower than during the pandemic, with many expecting economic conditions to worsen throughout the year. That expectation alone can slow spending.

The economy has become increasingly uneven. Higher-income households account for a growing share of total consumer spending, while many lower- and middle-income households face tighter financial constraints. That imbalance can become more pronounced when costs rise, forcing those with less flexibility to pull back their spending more quickly.

How much does a $1 increase in the price of gas matter?

In a strong economy with broad income growth and financial stability, the impact is manageable. But in an economy where many households are already stretched, savings are limited, and spending is increasingly concentrated among a select few, the effects will be significant.

Rising gas prices don’t just increase one expense. They expose the struggles of millions of Americans and how sensitive the broader economy has become to even modest increases in everyday costs.

https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/study/credit-card-debt-statistics/

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/03/americans-retirement-accounts-hardship-withdrawals-new-highs/

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2024-savings-and-investments.htm#:~:text=Among%20the%2037%20percent%20of,from%2011%20percent%20in%202021.