It’s 100 degrees on a late Tuesday in June, but 79-year-old Elisabeth — she asked that her surname not be used to protect her privacy — is in line at St. Patrick’s Church in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, waiting to get a bag of groceries. “I don’t have enough comida (food),” she tells Truthout in a mix of English and Spanish. “You know, leche (milk), pan (bread), pollo (chicken)…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
“Those people … ” Donald said, trailing off. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.” — Donald TRUMP
Trump’s buddy:
This figure corresponds to the number of inmate deaths since the “State of Emergency” was implemented in March 2022. “These were people awaiting trial who had not been convicted,” said the Salvadoran NGO, which provides legal assistance to the families of detainees.
According to SJH, 94% of those who died “had no gang affiliation,” and the organization warned that the total number of deaths in state custody “could surpass 1,000,” noting that “there is information being concealed in mass trials.”
A criminal justice reform passed in 2023 by the Legislative Assembly—controlled by President Nayib Bukele’s party—eliminated individual criminal proceedings and authorized the implementation of mass and collective trials based on gang affiliation. To date, no verdicts have been issued under this procedure, which human rights defenders have repeatedly denounced as violating the right to due process.
[El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, sitting next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office, said on Monday he will not return Kilmar Abrego García, a migrant from Maryland who was wrongfully deported.
“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele said when a reporter asked.
“How could I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” he added, repeating the Trump administration’s claim that Abrego García is a “terrorist” gang member of MS-13 — which it has not claimed in the court battle over his fate.
Bukele, the self-described “world’s coolest dictator” who has become a key partner in Trump’s controversial deportations, called it a “preposterous question,” saying “of course, I’m not going to do it,” as Trump nodded in agreement.]
Tax all these fucking continuing criminal enterprises? Check it out: UN Special Rapporteur Issues Report Detailing Corporate Machinery that Profits Off Immiseration of Palestinians
Italians Call for Nobel Peace Prize for Francisca Albanese
The Italian attorney, who has served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has directly and explicitly accused Israel of committing war crimes and genocide in the Gaza Strip.
During his weekly television show Con Maduro +, the Bolivarian leader said that Albanese “produced a report with conclusive and reliable evidence of the genocide being committed against the Palestinian people.”
“The criminals and the accomplices of the genocide will pay,” Maduro said, emphasizing that human rights defenders like Albanese “will be remembered in the future for their bravery.”
[Caterpillar bulldozer destroying Palestinian home in West Bank. ]
[I.G. Farben executives on trial at 1947 Nuremberg trials. I.G. Farben was a chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas used at Auschwitz and other concentration camps.]
[IDF helicopter at Tel Nof air base that is being upgraded by the U.S.]
[Glastonbury is far from perfect. Tickets are increasingly unaffordable making it largely inaccessible for many working class people. Its demographics remain overwhelmingly white. Its insurer—Allianz—invests in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. The contradictions are real.]
Shit dawg, the outsized number of Chosen People at this Utah fun fun fun felony camp:
A full guest list of the Allen and Co. gathering is below:
Big Tech
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta
Tim Cook, CEO of Apple
Eddy Cue, senior vice president of services at Apple
Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet
Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft
Jeff Bezos, executive chairman of Amazon
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon
Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft
Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber
Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb
Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir
Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify
Evan Spiegel, CEO of Snap
Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision Blizzard
Media and entertainment
David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery
Bruce Campbell, chief revenue and strategy officer of Warner Bros. Discovery
Bob Iger, CEO of The Walt Disney Company
Dana Walden, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment
Alan Bergman, co-chairman of Disney Entertainment
Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences
Jimmy Pitaro, chairman of ESPN
Michael Eisner, former CEO of The Walt Disney Company
Rupert Murdoch, former chairman of News Corp
Lachlan Murdoch, chairman of News Corp
Robert Thompson, CEO of News Corp
Barry Diller, chairman of IAC
Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix
Greg Peters, co-CEO of Netflix
Reed Hastings, chairman of Netflix
Neal Mohan, CEO of YouTube
Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast
Jason Blum, CEO of Blumhouse Productions
Brian Grazer, film and television producer
Bryan Lourd, CEO of Creative Artists Agency
Michael Ovitz, co-founder of Creative Artists Agency
Ynon Keri, CEO of Mattel
Charles Rivkin, CEO of the Motion Picture Association
Ravi Ahuja, CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment
John Malone, chairman of Liberty Media
Derek Chang, CEO of Liberty Media
Mike Fries, CEO of Liberty Global
Jeffrey Katzenberg, co-founder of DreamWorks
Michael Rapino, CEO of Live Nation Entertainment
Casey Wasserman, CEO of Wasserman Media Group
Corporate media
Michael Bloomberg, majority owner of Bloomberg L.P.
Diane Sawyer, anchor for ABC News
Anderson Cooper, anchor of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360
Erin Burnett, anchor of CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront
Andrew Ross Sorkin, financial columnist for The New York Times and co-anchor of CNBC’s Squawk Box
Becky Quick, co-anchor of CNBC’s Squawk Box
Bari Weiss, editor of The Free Press
Bret Baier, chief political anchor for FOX News
Evan Osnos, staff writer for The New Yorker
David Ignatius, columnist for The Washington Post
Gayle King, co-host of CBS Mornings
David Begnaud, contributor for CBS News
Bill Cowher, analyst for CBS Sports
Politics
Glenn Youngkin, governor of Virginia
Wes Moore, governor of Maryland
Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader
Gina Raimondo, former commerce secretary
Others
Ivanka Trump
Diane von Furstenberg, fashion designer
Ruth Rogers, owner of The River Café
[Summer camp for billionaires’ begins in Sun Valley with the arrival of 165 private jets]
Look at the degradation in AmeriKKKa, the headlines for this Mafia Meet-Up:
I will belabor the point — AmeriKKKa, AKA LaLaLandia, AKA, UnUnited Snake$ of Israel First, that fucking parasitic country, that ONE, is a tale of five bloody cities:
Annual Incomes of Top Earners
Data from tax year 2021 (as reported on Americans’ 2022 tax returns) shows that taxpayers in the top 1% had adjusted gross income (AGIs) of at least $682,577, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. Those in the top 5% had AGIs of at least $252,840, while breaking into the top 10% required an income of at least $169,800.1
Those numbers are averages and can vary widely across the country. According to GoBankingRates, also using 2021 data but adjusting it for inflation, qualifying for the top 1% now requires an AGI of over $1 million in five states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington), with Connecticut having the highest threshold, of $1,192,947.
Meanwhile, residents of Mississippi, New Mexico, and West Virginia could qualify with less than $500,000 in AGI, with West Virginia setting the lowest bar at $435,302.
Oh, those house negroes: Malcolm describes the difference between the “house Negro” and the “field Negro.”
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 23 January 1963.
So you have two types of Negro. The old type and the new type. Most of you know the old type. When you read about him in history during slavery he was called “Uncle Tom.” He was the house Negro. And during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro.
The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master’s second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master’s house–probably in the basement or the attic–but he still lived in the master’s house.
So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, “We have good food,” the house Negro would say, “Yes, we have plenty of good food.” “We” have plenty of good food. When the master said that “we have a fine home here,” the house Negro said, “Yes, we have a fine home here.” When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he’d say, “What’s the matter boss, we sick?” His master’s pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master’s house out than the master himself would.
But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses–the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he’d die. [Laughter] If his house caught on fire, they’d pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.
If someone came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” naturally that Uncle Tom would say, “Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?” That’s the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” he wouldn’t even ask you where or how. He’d say, “Yes, let’s go.” And that one ended right there.
So now you have a twentieth-century-type of house Negro. A twentieth-century Uncle Tom. He’s just as much an Uncle Tom today as Uncle Tom was 100 and 200 years ago. Only he’s a modern Uncle Tom. That Uncle Tom wore a handkerchief around his head. This Uncle Tom wears a top hat. He’s sharp. He dresses just like you do. He speaks the same phraseology, the same language. He tries to speak it better than you do. He speaks with the same accents, same diction. And when you say, “your army,” he says, “our army.” He hasn’t got anybody to defend him, but anytime you say “we” he says “we.” “Our president,” “our government,” “our Senate,” “our congressmen,” “our this and our that.” And he hasn’t even got a seat in that “our” even at the end of the line. So this is the twentieth-century Negro. Whenever you say “you,” the personal pronoun in the singular or in the plural, he uses it right along with you. When you say you’re in trouble, he says, “Yes, we’re in trouble.”
But there’s another kind of Black man on the scene. If you say you’re in trouble, he says, “Yes, you’re in trouble.” [Laughter] He doesn’t identify himself with your plight whatsoever. — SOURCE: X, Malcolm. “The Race Problem.” African Students Association and NAACP Campus Chapter. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 23 January 1963.
Look, I am taking adults with low income lives, adults with Medicaid lives, adults living with intellectual and developmental disabilities lives, adults who need to take in those 10 cents a pop beer and soda cans just to make ends meet lives, adults on food (SNAP) stamps lives, adults with no transportation options lives … taking them on road trips so they can have some sort of activities of daily living that go beyond watching the TV and playing on Smart/Dumb phones.
Intellectual disability1 starts any time before a child turns 18 and is characterized by differences with both:
The term “developmental disabilities” is a broader category of often lifelong challenges that can be intellectual, physical, or both.2
“IDD” is the term often used to describe situations in which intellectual disability and other disabilities are present.3
It might be helpful to think about IDDs in terms of the body parts or systems they affect or how they occur. For example4:
The exact definition of IDD, as well as the different types or categories of IDD, may vary depending on the source of the information.
For example, within the context of education and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a law that aims to ensure educational services to children with disabilities throughout the nation, the definition of IDD and the types of conditions that are considered IDD might be different from the definitions and categories used by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide services and support for those with disabilities. These definitions and categories might also be different from those used by healthcare providers and researchers.
Jewish elite values. More room temperature IQ’s:
Oz began by saying that programs like Medicare and Medicaid “were a promise to the American people to take care of you if you’re having problems financially or you’re having an issue because you’re older and need health care.”
But he also told Fox host Stuart Varney that Americans should also do the most they can to stay healthy.
“We’ll be there for you, the American people, when you need help with Medicare and Medicaid, but you’ve got to stay healthy as well,” Oz said. “Be vital. Do the most that you can do to really live up to the potential, the God-given potential, to live a full and healthy life.”
It was his next piece of advice, however, that inspired waves of social media mockery.
“You know, don’t eat carrot cake. Eat real food,” he said.
And, yes, Oz had brought a whole carrot cake for Varney.
“I couldn’t find a healthy cake, so I brought the closest thing, a carrot cake,” Oz said.
These people DO NOT care about you, me, my clients, those I write about, none of us.
Forget about FDR’s legacy: November 12, 2013/ How Franklin D. Roosevelt Botched Social Security/ Alan Nasser
My Uncle Donald Trump Told Me Disabled Americans Like My Son ‘Should Just Die’
Do you know how many MAGA maggots receiving Medicaid, VA benefits, SNAP, DD/ID services, and those getting bedpans changed via the public offers.
The barriers are everywhere, even in communities that are generally supportive, like ours. There are still doorways that can’t accommodate wheelchairs. It is still hard to find meaningful day programs that foster independence with learning, socialization, and assistive technology. The whole narrative still needs to change.
I knew that acceptance and tolerance would only come with public education and awareness. Donald might never understand this, but at least he had been open to our advocating through the White House. That was something. If we couldn’t change his feelings about William, that was his loss. He would never feel the love and connection that William offered us daily. By Fred C. Trump III/ July 24, 2024
And it was this that got me going just now: THE PARASITE TAX: The Central Element of Any Tax Code by Emanuel Pastreich
You red Pastreich’s piece and you be the judge. My comments?
Taxing a continuing criminal enterprises? Taxing the Mafia? Taxing a few million hitmen? Contract killers, tax them? Oh, tax the polluters and the toxin producers? Tax the pedophiles? Tax the manslaughter queens and kings? Tax the AI guys and AGI LGBTQA folk? Tax the mining companies? Tax Boeing and Raytheon? Oh, tax tax tax?
Sure, that is the peaceful revolution, no, the monsters still in charge. Oh, that’s right, where to start with the taxation? Hmm, I do a kilo of coke in my house, selling grams to dentists and doctors and professionals, but, alas, a Good Little German with Loose Lips lets the Nazis of the DEA kind know, and, bam, my house, my guns, my bank accounts, my investments, my retirement, my SS, gone gone gone. Forfeited?
But we will tax these mother fuckers? Nah, you need some training with AK-47’s and Molotovs and Claymore mines and, well, Anarchist Cookbook revised.
You digging this headline? Trump’s BBB busts the budget to benefit arms makers, AI warlords
Yeah.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
Millions of Americans are expected to lose health care coverage through President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful” tax and spending law — and LGBTQ+ Americans, who rely heavily on social services due to high rates of poverty and disability, are among those who will be most impacted. Experts say that widespread loss of health care, coupled with rising discrimination and fewer workplace…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
For too many people relying on Universal Credit, the harsh reality of benefit overpayments is pushing them further into financial ruin and damaging their mental health. Recent research from the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute reveals that when the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) demands repayment, it often deducts as much as 15% of a claimant’s monthly benefits—up to £60 for a single adult.
This heavy-handed approach leaves vulnerable individuals struggling just to eat, with one participant admitting that:
some days I have been not eating because I can’t afford to, which is leaving my mental health in tatters.
Official figures confirm the scale of the problem with these deductions.
In the financial year ending 2024, the DWP overpaid more than £6.4 billion in Universal Credit. Commercial lenders must secure court orders before taking money from someone’s income—a process that can take months. However, the government swiftly claws back these funds directly from claimants’ payments, often without adequate warning or consultation.
The research found that those affected are rarely informed about their repayment options. Plus, even when they do manage to negotiate a plan, the DWP still takes an immediate first payment that many simply cannot afford.
This unyielding strategy echoes the infamous carers’ allowance scandal, where unpaid carers were prosecuted for supposedly fraudulent claims after trying to report part-time work earnings.
The devastating toll on claimants’ finances and wellbeing is clear: many are plunged into deeper hardship, struggling to cover essentials once the deductions begin. One mother was told she owed £17,000 due to overpaid carers’ elements, which she had not been aware of for three years. Another was falsely accused of owing nearly £28,000.
Yet these are not isolated incidents but part of a wider pattern of aggressive debt recovery that punishes already struggling people.
There is growing alarm about the DWP’s approach. More than a million people owe money due to benefit overpayments, and many experience severe mental health challenges as a result of the relentless debt chasing.
The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute warns that current procedures resemble past policy failures and calls for urgent reform. Instead of punitive deductions, claimants should be given fair opportunities to negotiate manageable repayment plans—and crucially, be protected from deductions while those negotiations are underway.
Critics argue that the government’s new powers, proposed under the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, will make matters worse.
This legislation would let the DWP directly withdraw money from former claimants’ bank accounts or wages without a court order—a drastic step that risks exacerbating financial distress among those who may no longer be on benefits but still face residual debt. This level of intrusion and enforcement goes far beyond what commercial lenders must follow and fails to consider the real-life hardship imposed on claimants.
While the DWP claims it works to block incorrect payments—reportedly saving billions and protecting claimants from falling into debt—these savings and efficiencies come at a human cost.
The system’s errors are often the DWP’s fault, with recent analysis showing that government mistakes account for £111 million annually in unfair deductions. Citizens Advice has highlighted that over two million households, including millions of children, receive less income than they should because of these deductions.
It is evident that the current policy amounts to punishing vulnerable people twice: first by overpaying incorrectly, and then by ruthlessly reclaiming those sums without adequate safeguards or empathy. The official Benefit Overpayment Recovery Guide states that repayments can be waived if they would cause excessive harm, supported by medical evidence—but such exceptions are poorly communicated and poorly implemented, leaving many claimants trapped in a cycle of debt and despair.
Campaigners urge the DWP not only to halt these aggressive measures but to overhaul the system entirely.
Instead of driving people into destitution, the DWP should prioritise fairness, transparency, and support, giving claimants genuine choice and dignity.
As one representative from the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute stated, the government must:
proactively give people a real chance to negotiate a payment plan that they can actually afford, instead of just taking money out of people’s income with barely any warning.
For countless disabled people, single parents, and non-working people relying on benefits, this is not just about money—it’s about survival, mental health, and being treated with basic humanity in a system that too often fails them.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
Connecticut resident Stacey Duran’s youngest daughter was 3 months old when she fled an abusive partner in 2023. Along with her two other children — a then-7-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old son — the family spent more than a year bouncing between friends, relatives, and their car. “Most of the time we were in the car,” Duran told Truthout. “After my son’s father pulled his arm so hard that…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
The editor-at-large of the Sun and other right-wing propagandists are spreading the myth that millionaires are fleeing the UK and would do in greater numbers if we tax them more:
Let’s do a wealth tax eh https://t.co/F5gWl5bT93
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) July 6, 2025
First off, people on social media noted the reality of the approach:
My favourite thing about this country is that ‘you can’t take money from millionaires, they might leave’ is considered a more valid and compelling argument than ‘you can’t take money from disabled people, they might die’.
— Erin Ekins (she/her) (@QueerlyAutistic) July 7, 2025
The political and media class certainly treat problems for rich people as above life or death matters for the rest of us. Chancellor Rachel Reeves also garnered way more sympathy from commentators for her tearful appearance in the Commons then the prospect of disabled people losing their means to survive.
And critically, the figure of 16,500 millionaires leaving the UK is literally 0.5% of the total millionaires (3,061,553) in the country. The figure itself also comes from Henley & Partners, a firm specialising in providing the means for the transnational capitalist class to relocate.
A key argument media commentators make is that millionaires leaving leads to a loss of investment. But there are literally no restrictions on foreign people investing in the UK stock market. So even from a free market perspective, the position makes little sense.
On social media, people scoffed at the very concept:
Honestly don’t give a shit if every single millionaire leaves the UK.
— Johanna Saunders
(@JohannaSaunders) July 7, 2025
The thing is, polling shows that most millionaires are happy to pay back into a system that supports them. 68% of millionaires themselves support a wealth tax, according to polling by Survation. On LBC, Stephen Kinsella of Patriotic Millionaires said:
There’s a lot to be said about for having a fairer system of taxation and having those who have been more fortunate – most of whom made their money based on the fact that we have got infrastructure… free education, free university, a lot of us have benefited hugely from this country and are quite happy to pay back
This chimes with a report from Tax Justice Network, which found:
Research suggests that the majority of wealth holders have strong ties to their countries and a genuine desire to contribute as citizens. Factors such as family and social connections, access to education, and overall economic stability carry more weight than tax levels when it comes to their decision on whether to relocate
An issue with a huge proportion of the super rich in the country is unearned wealth. Over half of billionaire wealth in the UK comes from inheritance, property and finance, according to the Equality Trust. These all contribute to a rigged economy.
It’s clear we need to rebalance society. It’s worth ignoring the Sun propaganda about a millionaire exodus.
Featured image via screengrab
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
In his second term, President Donald Trump aims to dismantle U.S. social welfare programmes developed in the 1960s during the “War on Poverty,” despite ongoing public need. Jalyn Shahid-EL examines how these cuts disproportionately impact low-income Americans, particularly rural white voters who support Trump. She argues racial prejudice and hierarchy may outweigh economic self-interest, raising the question: is this a war on poverty or a war on poor Americans?
In the 1960s, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the “War on Poverty” to address social inequalities in struggling communities. Today, President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to weaken and completely abolish these safety nets, which a significant portion of his constituents rely on. Cuts to Medicaid, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), housing assistance, and other social programmes disproportionately impact low-income Americans, particularly rural white voters who backed Trump in the 2024 election. The Trump administration’s regressive attempts to improve economic efficiency raise the question: Has the war on poverty become a war on poor white Americans?
Many poor white Americans who supported Trump did so in the belief that his policies would target Black and Brown communities—not themselves. Their support stems from “perceived racial status threat”—deeply ingrained beliefs of white supremacy and entitlement, and a rejection of any policies that would even remotely place them on equal footing with Black Americans. Their commitment to racial prejudice and hierarchy blinds them to economic inequality. Ultimately, Trump’s policies have not only failed to address poverty but have actively contributed to the worsening conditions of the very people who elected him. To understand the pattern of why many poor white Americans vote against their interests, we must discuss the deeper psychological roots of white entitlement.
Coined in many academic disciplines, “white entitlement” is an idea at the intersection of whiteness and privilege that helps explain why working-class white Americans hurt themselves by voting for Trump. W.E.B. Du Bois’s concept of “psychological wage” further explains why some poor white voters continue to support policies that harm them as long as the racial hierarchy remains. The Trump administration exploited this, using racial tensions as a weapon to justify regressive politics.
A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study found that respondents were asked about their beliefs on the racial distribution of welfare recipients. Results concluded that respondents overestimated that 37 per cent of Black people and 39 per cent of white people received welfare benefits. In reality, Black beneficiaries only make up 21 per cent, far from the 37 per cent of the respondents’ belief.
The NBER study further included party affiliation as a determining factor for biased ideology. The results found that “conservatives and moderates are significantly more likely to overestimate the share of welfare recipients who are Black than liberals.” These findings indicate that Trump’s strategic approach relies on undermining evidence-based and inclusive social policy, and in doing so, he continues to weaponise racial tensions for political gain.
Despite aid being essential to millions of white Americans, the continued reinforcement of long-standing racial stereotypes surrounding welfare recipients by the Trump administration perpetuates fear and resentment. For example, the term “welfare queen” came into conversations about poverty in the 1970s during the Reagan administration. This stereotypical language shames Black women who receive welfare based on assumptions rather than their actual realities, which stems from the belief of who is the “most” deserving of government aid. In other words, once accessible welfare programmes developed a negative connotation because they made non-recipient families and working-class people internalise their struggles as not deserving enough. The Clinton administration solidified the link between the poor and poverty by codifying it through policy and reshaping welfare dependency, further enhancing the “welfare queen” narrative, as mentioned by New America.
The Trump administration reinforces this rhetoric in how Trump himself speaks about immigration, shifting the conversation to frame non-white communities against immigrants as a national threat. Notably, during Trump’s first term, his detest for immigrants, especially Black and Brown immigrants, was met with strong family separation policies. As this Just Security article highlights, the Reagan-era stereotypes painted Black women as “irresponsible” women who make many babies to benefit from government welfare checks. Over time, racial and welfare discussions changed, creating another stereotype where “Black children born on US soil [were] for…citizenship.” This narrative fuelled discussions of “whataboutism” and strong views of separating “anchor babies” from “welfare queen” mothers.
The Price of Poverty
The Trump administration plans to abolish essential programmes, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and federal rental aid. If implemented, his proposed cuts would seriously harm at-risk communities that depend on the services during emergencies. Disasters like Hurricane Helene in 2024 made this evident, as struggling communities were left heavily reliant on federal aid and demonstrated the essential part of these programmes.
By reconsidering and potentially modifying this funding, the administration is introducing uncertainty within the nation and deepening the very crisis it claims to address, all while promoting Trump’s vague slogan of “putting America first”. Eight days into Trump’s new administration, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a temporary pause on certain federal financial assistance programmes to review spending priorities, reported by The 19th. Although this pause was lifted after legal changes were made the following day, the confusion already had a lasting impact on its beneficiaries, shifting to intensified negative stereotypes and racist beliefs about social welfare recipients.
Government Neglect and Disaster Failures
While Trump’s funding review did not completely halt all social programmes, the damage was already done, especially during Trump’s confusing “federal freeze“. As a result, many Americans who rely on consistent access to critical services like SNAP benefits, particularly in rural areas, faced confusion and panic. In September 2024, the devastation from Hurricane Helene foreshadowed the chaos that the federal freeze would create during the 2025 federal review. Hurricane Helene targeted the Western region of North Carolina, leaving the state’s relief plan and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) under scrutiny as communities struggled to get aid. During his “Tour of Hurricane Helene Disaster Site”, Trump made it clear that he intended to significantly alter FEMA by “fundamentally reforming [it] and overhauling”, as reported by The American Presidency Project. With the changes to FEMA, the affected community felt abandoned and uncertain about their future, particularly among working-class white Americans who make up a crucial demographic in Trump’s political base.
Currently, Trump’s politics reinforce these illusions of an “America First” agenda while undermining his voter base—majority poor white Americans. Recently, Time reported the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) plan to eliminate jobs and funding, forcing jobs at the Social Security Administration and their offices to close. Some policymakers even fear new “identification policies”, introduced by the Senate or House, which increase the difficulties of accessing these offices, including requiring beneficiaries and applicants to come into their offices or call as opposed to online access. As a result, rural communities (full of his supporters) will face challenges due to the inaccessible nature of these codified policies.
So, is this a war on poverty or a war on poor white Americans? …It’s both! Poor white Americans hope and aspire to “get ahead” of people they view as beneath them, particularly Black people. To be seen in the same class as other minorities goes against their fundamental principles of entitlement and some of their beliefs about white entitlement. Therefore, their vote in hopes of getting ahead ends up impacting them more, as this demographic does not tend to vote where they socially, politically, or economically stand.
In the end, despite the policies favouring the capitalist wealthy, these fundamentals contradict the U.S.’s self-proclaimed role as a representative and advocate of human rights. Its own citizens, especially rural poor white Americans, are left to face the systematic economic obstacles they had hoped to combat by voting for Trump. The same government that touts American exceptionalism is completely disregarding the well-being of one of its most vulnerable populations, with 73.9 per cent of majority-white rural counties supporting Trump in 2024 & 52 per cent of Trump supporters came from families earning $50,000-$99,999 in 2023. By provoking a race war with extreme political rhetoric, Trump fails to address these concerns, taking advantage of their economic instability.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: René DeAnda
The post Trump’s war on poverty: poor white Americans and the social safety nets first appeared on LSE Human Rights.
This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.
The year is 1968. Summertime. Washington, DC. And covering the National Mall are endless rows of shacks built by hundreds of poor families from across the United States. It’s called Resurrection City, and they have come to Washington to demand an end to poverty and a new economic bill of rights… for the poor.
This was Martin Luther King Jr’s dream. The Poor People’s Campaign is what he’d been working for in the months before he was killed in April 1968.
The city would last for six weeks. It would inspire thousands. Its legacy would last for decades.
This is episode 51 of Stories of Resistance—a podcast co-produced by The Real News and Global Exchange. Independent investigative journalism, supported by Global Exchange’s Human Rights in Action program. Each week, we’ll bring you stories of resistance like this. Inspiration for dark times.
If you like what you hear, please subscribe, like, share, comment, or leave a review.
And please consider signing up for the Stories of Resistance podcast feed, either in Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Spreaker, or wherever you listen.
You can listen to Michael Fox’s full interview with Marc Steiner on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures of many of his stories, follow his reporting and support his work and this podcast.
Written and produced by Michael Fox.
Poor Peoples Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival: https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/
Camp life in Resurrection City 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjsQ7IWszRE
Senate listens to people of Resurrection City 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4hrSkTnXes
Resurrection City closed down, Abernathy jailed 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpBlIKJDyA
#MLK on the Poor People’s Campaign, Nonviolence and Social Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWcD4xt7Mnk
Poor Peoples Campaign June 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCcKpVFz32c
The year is 1968.
Summertime.
Washington DC.
And covering the National Mall are endless rows of shacks built by hundreds of poor families from across the United States. It’s called Resurrection City. And they have come to Washington to demand an end to poverty and a new economic bill of rights.
This was Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. The Poor People’s Campaign is what he’d been working for in the months before he was killed in April 1968.
“The emergency we now face is economic. And it is a desperate and worsening situation for the 35 million poor people in America. Not even to mention just yet the poor in the other nations, there is a kind of strangulation in the air.”
For King, poverty was a great evil. Something to be overcome. And which could be tackled by uniting across communities. Uniting across color lines. Despite his death, people carried on. They would organize in poor communities across the US.
Longtime radio host Marc Steiner was deeply involved.
“And when the Poor People’s Campaign started, we knew we had to build a coalition to join Resurrection City and started in Chicago… we traveled around the industrial north and down through Appalachia to organize communities to come to Resurrection City.”
And come they did. Thousands of people came from across the country in mid-May.
“I mean, there were thousands of people there… And people moved in, well, first of all, they came into DC from all over the country. And there were people from reservations in New York in North and South Dakota and Southwest United States all coming in, you know, to, to there. There were Mexicans coming from all across Southwestern United States and California. That and the Puerto Ricans coming in from Chicago and New York and in the Appalachian group. It was, it was really unbelievable. I mean, it was hard to fathom the power and beauty of this multiracial poor people’s coalition that actually came and they built these shacks, you know, and communal eating centers for cooking tents. And the mud, because it rained and rained and rained. And people stayed. It was, it was horrendous, but powerful.”
At its height, roughly 3,000 people lived in the makeshift wooden shacks of Resurrection City, right in the middle of the National Mall, in Washington, DC. It was a full-blown town. There was a day care center. A city hall. A barber shop. It had its own ZIP code. The goal was to pressure lawmakers to pass legislation to tackle the inequality in the country.
“I got nine children going to school now. And I had been to the welfare agency to see if I can get help and they wouldn’t help. And I really need help.”
This is from old footage and interviews from Resurrection City.
“A lot of people knew the condition of some of these places and when they see and know the condition will be interested enough to try to make things better.”
They demanded that the country spend $35 billion a year to end poverty in the United States. They called for half a million homes to be built per year until every poor neighborhood was transformed. They demanded full employment in the country, with a living wage for everyone.
“What we’re saying is that our economic order is evil… It’s been our experience that Congress and this nation doesn’t really move until their own self-interest is threatened. And until they, in fact, they begin to share some of the problems of the poor. Or some of the effects of poverty.”
They held marches and rallies, the biggest on Juneteenth, with 100,000 people in the streets.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s widow, Coretta Scott King, spoke to the crowd.
“We are here because we feel a frightful sense of urgency to rectify the long standing evils and injustices in our society, racism, poverty and war. The Poor People’s Campaign was conceived by my late husband, Doctor Martin Luther King Junior, as America’s last chance to solve these problems nonviolently. The sickness of racism. The despair of poverty and the hopelessness of war have served to deepen the hatred, heightened the bitterness, increase the frustration, and further alienate the poor in our society.”
Residents of Resurrection City spoke to lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“We’re building our old house over there and I’m gonna tell you something. It’s better than anything that we have in Brownsville. We got our house better than anything in Flatbush, which is middle class.
“It is working down in Resurrection City. And please listen to that. That beautiful thing down there is just the top of a movement that stretches from coast to coast.
“This is the last chance I think for this country to sort of respond to the quiet and peaceful petitions of people who are asking for very very just solutions to very very real problems.”
Resurrection City lasted for more than 40 days.
“Yeah, it was a, it was an amazing experience. America could use that again now.”
It was inspiring. It was powerful. Maybe too powerful.
After six weeks, on June 24, a thousand police officers rolled in to crush Resurrection City.
“It was like chaos. I mean, they came in just destroying places where people lived, throwing people out. Some people got arrested and, you know, it was a, it was a really miserable, anticlimactic end to a very powerful movement.”
But its legacy would last until today. Marc Steiner…
“It was critical. I mean, it was a game changer in many ways for a number of levels. It radicalized people inside of poor communities that were involved in the Poor People’s Campaign to help them build movements locally. One of the hidden gems of the Poor People’s Campaign for me is that what happened after it was destroyed and people went back to their communities and continued to build and organize because of that experience. And that’s that story that’s really hidden and not talked about very much.
“All over the country that happened, and some of us stayed in touch. Like when I went back to Baltimore in 1970, Baltimore had a series of collectives in working-class communities. Organizing. And so we did a lot of great work in those first few years of the 1970s, and that was born out of that.
“And it happened all over the country like that. I mean, we started a People’s Free garage, we started a People’s Free grocery store, we started at People’s Free Medical Clinic. We organized, we started a Tenants Union group that fought against slumlords and brought Black and white communities together to fight, you know, these slumlords. And so, I mean, out of Resurrection City, a movement was created.”
And it didn’t stop there. On the 50th anniversary, a new Poor People’s Campaign was organized in communities across the US to once again pick up Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream. Led by Rev. William Barber and Rev. Liz Theoharis, they, too, marched on Washington.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream continues to inspire.
This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Michael Fox.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
From June 13-15 more than 400 workers answered the call by the Southern Workers Assembly (SWA) to affirm an action plan to challenge the systemic racism, poverty and anti-unionism of the South.
The dynamic agenda of the summit was held in Spartanburg, South Carolina, with workers mostly from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. All the main sessions were able to be heard in English and Spanish. Workers of all ages participated in very interactive breakout sessions that combined proven tactics for organizing with new ideas and technology.
The post Southern Workers Strategize For Future Struggles appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
47% of UK adults (28.3 million people) experienced financial insecurity – or ‘economic precarity’ – in 2022/23, according to new research led by the London School of Economics (LSE). Given the UK is one of the richest countries in the world, it’s clear that rampant inequality – where 1% of the population have more wealth than 70% – is a factor.
The number of adults facing economic precarity has risen significantly since 2014/15, where it stood at 29% (16.7 million people).
Large numbers of adults experienced other forms of insecurity in 2022/23. A further 46% of adults experienced health insecurity. 27% faced housing insecurity, while 36% experienced work insecurity.
The study found that the rise of economic precarity is driven by austerity cuts such as the benefit freeze and NHS underfunding, along with inflation in utilities, consumer and housing costs.
The research underscores the need to bring public services back into public ownership and deliver a Green New Deal. A publicly owned Green New Deal would remove profiteering from the energy system including the national grid, uphold the UK’s role in stopping the climate crisis, bring about cheaper renewable energy and shield the UK from volatile global gas markets, all in one fell swoop.
Instead, Labour appears to have abandoned its previous commitment to what chancellor Rachel Reeves called ‘securonomics’. Indeed, they are not nationalising utilities like Keir Starmer pledged to. And they are continuing with Tory austerity, whether it’s the illogical and cruel two child benefit cap or the cuts to disabled people’s support. All this is deepening people’s economic precarity.
The report also found that 9% of people (5.2 million) experienced a combination of financial, health and housing insecurity in 2022/23. That’s up from 6% in 2014/15.
For some groups of people, that figure of economic precarity and its intersections is much higher. It includes:
The study notes that the surge in economic precarity negatively impacts society in multiple ways. It leads to mental health issues, difficulty raising children and makes it hard for people to take up further education. 57% of those with multiple insecurities felt constant strain.
It’s clear that austerity and inequality is having a destructive impact on the UK. We must reverse these trends.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
There has been a surge in the number of UK families turning to baby banks to support their babies. It underscores yet again that charity is a sign the Labour government is failing. 3.5 million items, including cots, clothes, prams and nappies, were handed out in 2024. That’s a 143% increase on the previous year.
Unfortunately, this comes as no surprise when Labour’s maintenance of the Tories’ two child benefit cap plunges 100 children into poverty per day. Rather than tackling this head on and announcing measures such as ending the cap (which can only punish children for being born), Labour has delayed its child poverty strategy to autumn at the earliest.
There are 4.5 million children living in poverty in the UK, at an increase of 200,000 from 2023 to 2024. And Labour are making it worse – by their own estimation. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) admitted on 26 March that its own figures show that fresh government austerity will push 250,000 people, including 50,000 more children into poverty by 2029/30. That’s because of cuts to welfare including support for disabled people. The impact assessment found that 3.2m families will lose an average of £1,720 per year.
The two child benefit cap strips benefits such as universal credit from a third child. It’s worth noting that two thirds of households impacted by the cap have at least one working parent. And that the amount of unemployed people in the country vastly outpaces the number of jobs, by ten million if you include the ‘economically inactive’. In fact, neoliberal managers sometimes consider unemployment a good thing because they believe it keeps workers competitive and eager for any job they can get. This is complete nonsense: as long as wages and job benefits are fair, people will appreciate their job even if it was guaranteed (within reason). Labour could be bold and undertake a training and jobs programme in support of the public and private sector, including job sharing to address the fact some are on benefits while others work 40 hour weeks.
Baby banks in the UK supported 219,637 families in 2024 – a 35% increase on the year before. One of them was single parent Adam Coggins who told the Independent:
I was so uncomfortable going there, because I’ve never had to ask for help before. I felt like a failure; that was hard. [But] without these people, we would be in trouble. They’ve saved a lot of people – [and] especially when you’ve got two young kids, you need that help. That could be the difference between getting a couple of meals for them. Getting two packs of nappies saves you money to get food for them.
This is no surprise when you consider research from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). It found that a lone parent working full time on the minimum wage can only meet 69% of costs. And even two parents working full time fall short of a basic standard of living for them and their children, according to CPAG.
Meanwhile, a report from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has highlighted that a quarter of households with children under four are experiencing food poverty. The EPI also found that children under five are 25% more likely to experience food poverty than other children.
The figures on baby banks come from the Baby Bank Alliance (BBA), which also found that demand is well beyond their supply. 65% of the more than 400 baby banks that are BBA members reported in a survey that they had more requests for help than they could deliver.
Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, hit the nail on the head, saying:
That baby banks even exist in one of the richest countries on Earth is an indictment of our political choices. The fact they’ve now seen a 35 per cent surge in demand speaks to a crisis not of resources, but of priorities. If we can afford tax breaks for the wealthy, we can afford dignity for children. Ending child poverty is a political decision. This government is choosing not to make it.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
I have written this newsletter before. In fact, I could write this newsletter every year when a new Global Report on Food Crises is published. The report rests on four points:
The number of people who are hungry is greater now than last year.
The amount of food produced this year is greater than that produced last year.
There is enough food to feed the total world population, and more.
How do we explain why people are hungry?
Let’s add in the data.
Point no. 1: 733 million people faced chronic hunger in 2023, according to studies from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), World Food Programme, World Health Organisation, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and United Nations Children’s Fund.
The post Hundreds Of Millions Are Dying Of Hunger appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
In cities across the U.S., the housing crisis has reached a breaking point. Rents are skyrocketing, homelessness is rising and working-class neighborhoods are threatened by displacement.
These challenges might feel unprecedented. But they echo a moment more than half a century ago.
In the 1950s and 1960s, housing and urban inequality were at the center of national politics. American cities were grappling with rapid urban decline, segregated and substandard housing, and the fallout of highway construction and urban renewal projects that displaced hundreds of thousands of disproportionately low-income and Black residents.
The post Anti-Poverty Experiment From The 1960s Could Inspire Housing Justice appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
Shadow chancellor and ex-Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) boss Mel Stride has launched a preposterous critique of Nigel Farage, drawing comparisons between the Reform UK leader and… Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, he really did say that – to the Spectator, of all places. It was, predictably, over the two-child benefit cap.
Stride’s bizarre comment comes on the heels of Farage announcing plans to abolish the controversial two-child benefit cap, a policy that has come under fire for exacerbating child poverty among the UK’s most vulnerable families.
Farage asserted:
We believe lifting the two-child cap is the right thing to do. Not because we support a benefits culture, but because we believe for lower-paid workers this actually makes having children just a little bit easier for them.
Retaliating to Reform clearly putting water between themselves and the Tories, Stride quipped to the Spectator:
Farage has announced billions in unfunded commitments with fantasy ways to pay for them. It’s Corbynism in a different colour.
Stride’s dismissive response reflects a broader tension within British politics, where established parties are forced to confront the growth of the far-right, who are playing political games to garner support.
The two-child benefit cap, introduced by the Conservative government in 2017, limits families to receiving extra financial support through Universal Credit only for their first two children. Critics argue that this policy has cruelly stripped assistance from struggling families and contributed directly to rising levels of child poverty, affecting approximately 1.6 million children across the UK.
If the cap remains in place, it is estimated that 670,000 more children will face poverty in the coming years, a devastating statistic that underlines the significance of this debate. The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party have also echoed calls for its removal, with Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper branding it “heartless.”
In contrast, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch staunchly defends the cap, proclaiming it to be “right” and “fair.” She has imperiously dismissed the proposals from Farage and Labour leader Keir Starmer as mere political pandering, asserting:
I am saying what is the right thing to do – it may not be popular, but it is absolutely the right thing to do.
However, many are questioning whose interests this policy serves. The evidence reveals that low-income families, especially those with multiple children, find themselves shouldering the burden of what many perceive as a misguided austerity measure rather than a moral or fiscal necessity.
As the Labour Party grapples with internal divisions over welfare policies, it is reportedly considering scrapping the two-child benefit cap in response to rising public dissatisfaction.
Education Minister Bridget Phillipson confirmed that this proposal remains on the table as part of broader efforts to combat child poverty. The party’s recent struggles in local elections -losing ground to far-right Reform – further illustrate the shifting political landscape, compelling Labour to reconsider its stance.
Critics within Labour, including veteran MP John McDonnell, argue that lifting the cap is essential for rectifying the injustices inflicted by earlier policies and significantly reducing child poverty.
Farage’s call to scrap the two-child cap, along with his proposals to enhance welfare benefits and tax breaks for married couples, is part of a concerted effort to align himself as a moderate alternative to the Conservative government’s current trajectory.
Of course, this is demonstrable nonsense. Farage’s racist, classist party has no care for low-paid workers – who, incidentally, make up 59% of families affected by the two-child benefit cap. He is merely playing political games to force Labour to act – while presenting his as the party of poor(er) people.
And if Reform did get into government, there is no way that it would scrap the cap. If anything, as per the party’s MPs’ previous comments, people on benefits would be even worse off than under Labour and the Tories.
So, on the face of it, Stride is not actually wrong when he says that Reform’s policies are effectively uncosted drivel. However, he’d do well to remember that Labour’s two manifestos under Corbyn were fully costed. But of course, using Corbyn to attack Farage (when the former may be about to launch a new party) seems like an easy win for the Tories.
Overall, the crucial question remains: will Labour seize this opportunity to shift towards more compassionate policies, or will the fiscal realities dictate a return to austerity and further entrench the hardships faced by society’s most vulnerable?
As this dynamic scenario unfolds, the voices of working families must be centred in the national conversation, signalling the desperate need for real change in the UK’s welfare system.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
In a region too often consumed by the drums of war, particularly between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, the importance of a sustained ceasefire cannot be overstated. While military skirmishes and nationalistic posturing capture headlines, they divert critical attention and resources from the real battles against poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and public health crises. A nation’s greatness lies not in its arsenal but in the well-being of its people. The ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan in May 2025 offers an opportunity to reimagine national priorities, shifting focus from border conflicts to building equitable and just societies.
The post Communist-Led Kerala Is Eradicating Extreme Poverty appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
At the beginning of the Tory/ Lib Dem coalition government in 2010, the amount of foodbank parcels handed out stood at 60,000. The Trussell Trust has now revealed that this figure is close to three million for the year 2024/2025. And that only includes foodbanks run under the Trussell group. That is a 50 fold or 5000% increase.
The response to the foodbank epidemic from politicians is quite something. In 2022, former prime minister David Cameron tweeted that he had been volunteering at a foodbank for two years. Yes, the very architect of austerity who slashed public services and benefits must be drowning in hypocrisy. He’s a major reason the foodbanks are necessary.
Then there’s now-Reform MP Lee Anderson. As a Tory MP previously, he said:
I think you’ll see first-hand that there’s not this massive use for food banks in this country. You’ve got generation after generation who cannot cook properly. They can’t cook a meal from scratch. They cannot budget
Yet 15% of UK households are living in food insecurity, meaning eight million adults and three million children. In September, union leaders called on Keir Starmer to put a stop to the issue:
We simply cannot allow food banks to be seen as a normal part of life in the 21st Century. People are already at breaking point. You must tackle food insecurity and end food bank Britain.
The Trussell figure for foodbank use for 2024/25 is only an 8% reduction on 2023/24 levels.
Nonetheless, Starmer is going ahead with budget cuts to public services (branded as ‘efficiency savings’), along with cuts to disabled people’s support that will plunge 670,000 families who are already poor into even deeper hardship.
This is contrary to Labour’s manifesto, which said:
We want to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society.
In its report, Trussell made clear the main cause of foodbank use:
Emergency food parcel provision remains close to record levels first and foremost due to a weakened social security system that is unable to protect people from the most severe forms of hardship
The inadequate safety net forced 567,235 people (including 200,224 children) to turn to foodbanks for the first time in 2024/25. At the same time, the UK’s richest 350 households have £773 billion in wealth, according to the Sunday Times rich list for this year.
Low wages are also a factor in foodbank use. 11% of people referred to foodbanks in 2024/25 were earning.
At the same time as people rely on foodbanks, Tesco has reported profits of over £3 billion for 2024/25 and Sainsburys around £1 billion. That is obscene profiteering because of control over the food supply.
It’s clear the system is broken and Starmer doesn’t look likely to fix it.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
We have been handed a long and protracted recession with few signs of growth and prosperity. Budget 2025 signals more of the same, writes Susan St John.
ANALYSIS: By Susan St John
With the coalition government’s second Budget being unveiled, we should question where New Zealand is heading.
The 2024 Budget laid out the strategy. Tax cuts and landlord subsidies were prioritised with a focus on cuts to social and infrastructure spending. Most of the tax package went to the well-off, while many low-income households got nothing, or very little.
Even the tiny bit of the tax package directed to low-income people fell flat. Family Boost has significantly helped only a handful of families, while the increase of $25 per week (In Work Tax Credit) was denied all families on benefits, affecting about 200,000 of the very poorest children.
In the recession, families that lost paid work also lost access to full Working for Families, an income cut for their children of about $100 per week.
No one worked out how the many spending cuts would be distributed, but they have hurt the poor the most. These changes are too numerous to itemise but include increased transport costs; the reintroduction of prescription charges; a disastrous school lunch system; rising rents, rates and insurance; fewer budget advisory services; cuts to foodbank funding and hardship grants; stripping away support programmes for the disabled; inadequately adjusted benefits and minimum wage; and reduced support for pay equity and the living wage.
The objective is to save money while ignoring the human cost. For example, a scathing report of the Auditor General confirms that Oranga Tamariki took a bulldozer to obeying the call for a 6.5 percent cut in existing social services with no regard to the extreme hurt caused to children and struggling parents.
Budget 2025 has already indicated that Working for Families will continue to go backwards with not even inflation adjustments. The 2025 child and youth strategy report shows that over the year to June 2024 the number of children in material poverty continued to increase, there were more avoidable hospitalisations, immunisation rates for babies declined, and there was more food insecurity.
Human costs all around us
We can see the human costs all around us in homelessness, food insecurity, and ill health. Already we know we rank at the bottom among developed countries for child wellbeing and suicide rates.
Abject distress existing alongside where homes sell for $20 million-$40 million is no longer uncommon, and neither are $6 million helicopters of the very rich.
At the start of the year, Helen Robinson, CEO of the Auckland City Mission, had a clear warning: “I am pleading with government for more support, otherwise what we and other food relief agencies in Auckland can provide, will dramatically decrease.
“This leaves more of Auckland hungry and those already there become more desperate. It is the total antithesis of a thriving city.”
The theory held by this government is that by reducing the role of government and taxes, the private sector will flourish, and secure well-paid jobs will be created. Instead, as basic economic theory would predict, we have been handed a long and protracted recession with few signs of growth and prosperity.
Budget 2025 signals more of the same.
It would be a mistake to wait for simplistic official inequality statistics before we act. Our current destination is a sharply divided country of extreme wealth and extreme poverty with an insecure middle class.
Underfunded social agencies
Underfunded and swamped social agencies cannot remove the relentless stress on the people who are invisible in the ‘fiscally responsible’ economic narrative. The fabricated bogeyman of outsized net government debt is at the core, as the government pursues balanced budgets and small government-size targets.
A stage one economics student would know the deficit increases automatically in a recession to cushion the decline and stop the economy spiralling into something that looks more like a depression. But our safety nets of social welfare are performing very badly.
Rising unemployment has exposed the inadequacy of social protections. Working for Families, for instance, provides a very poor cushion for children. Many “working” families do not have enough hours of work and face crippling poverty traps.
Future security is undermined as more KiwiSavers cash in for hardship reasons. A record number of the talented young we need to drive the recovery and repair the frayed social fabric have already fled the country.
The government is fond of comparing its Budget to that of a household. But what prudent household would deliberately undermine the earning capacity of family members?
The primary task for the Budget should be to look after people first, to allow them to meet their food, dental and health needs, education, housing and travel costs, to have a buffer of savings to cushion unexpected shocks and to prepare for old age.
A sore thumb standing
In the social security part of the Budget, NZ Super for all at 65, no matter how rich or whether still in full-time well-paid work, dominates (gross $25 billion). It’s a sore thumb standing out alongside much less generous, highly targeted benefits and working for families, paid parental leave, family boost, hardship provisions, accommodation supplement, winter energy and other payments and subsidies.
Given the political will, research shows we can easily redirect at least $3 billion from very wealthy superannuitants to fixing other payments to greatly improve the wellbeing of the young. This will not be enough but it could be a first step to the wide rebalancing needed.
New Zealand has become a country of two halves whose paths rarely cross: a social time bomb with unimaginable consequences. It is a country beguiled by an egalitarian past that is no more.
Susan St John is an associate professor in the Pensions and Intergenerational Equity hub and Economic Policy Centre, Business School, University of Auckland. This article was first published by Newsroom before the 2025 Budget and is republished with permission.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
On 18 May, Newcastle held a people’s assembly with former North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll. The Canary went along to the exciting and packed event, where people living locally discussed the issues they’re facing and what potential solutions could be.
Driscoll spoke to the Canary after the event. And the plan is clear: listen, prepare, and act.
Candidates with Jamie Driscoll’s majority party are “intending to fight and win” next year’s local council elections in Newcastle. And he said that, while it’s important to be angry about what’s going on both at home and abroad, the really key question is “what are we going to do about it?”
That’s why a clear plan is essential. Because the idea isn’t to ask voters locally to “agree with us that you should be angry”; it’s to say “vote for us because this is what we’re going to do”. And if you actually want to deliver for people, he stressed:
the best way is to have the people right at the heart of it. Because if you want to know how to speed up the buses, ask a bus driver – they do it for a living every day!
As mayor, Driscoll listened to people living locally and, where he had “the power and the funds”, he took action. Even when it wasn’t his role, he spoke up. Where the council had the power, for example, he worked with councillors to encourage action. And on bigger national issues, he spoke up and lobbied.
If he and his team “take control of Newcastle City Council next year and the Labour government isn’t gonna stump up the cash that is needed and it’s not gonna tax billionaires”, he promised they won’t stay quiet:
What you won’t get from us is a lot of hand wringing, ‘oh it’s terrible’, ‘oh national government’s made us do it’… What you’ll get is a 40ft banner down the side of the Civic Centre saying ‘these are the people responsible’. And you know what? If you wanna take our school crossing safety off us, we’re all gonna get in a bus as councillors and we’re gonna lie down outside parliament. We’re gonna make a fuss. So you’ll still get a fight back.
Driscoll asserted that:
the role of a councillor is to be a shop steward for the community inside the Council, not a cheerleader for the Council inside the community
And the idea of community assemblies is precisely to make sure people living locally have a central role in determining what the priorities are and how to address them.
The 18 May assembly brought together many dozens of people who were passionate about participating and sharing their lived experiences locally. They discussed insights into the problems and potential solutions to the challenges facing them. And this collaborative agenda will become the key message ahead of the local elections next year. Campaigners will then use that to “get out there, get a coalition together, and win, and then implement it”.
One key issue that came up for people was the urgent national need for a wealth tax – something that has widespread support across the country. But people also discussed local issues that had a clear connection to elite plunder via “big corporations lobbying government” and “billionaires’ wealth extraction”.
Though we all have much in common, there are clearly cultural divides in Britain. And that can create tension sometimes. But we can diffuse that tension and come together around shared goals, Driscoll stressed, if we listen to people with an open mind. We need to focus on “hearing what they’re saying and not projecting your opinions onto them”, he said.
Recently, Driscoll explained, he was talking to someone in a neglected nearby town. And the feeling of “why is no one listening to us?” was clear. As he said:
you talk to them and actually they’ve got exactly the same concerns. Why isn’t my bus on time? Why is it so bloody expensive? Why is it there’s so much month left at the end of the money? Looking in their supermarket trolley thinking, ‘I used to be able to buy twice this much’.
Another person he spoke to said he was thinking of voting for Reform, despite disagreeing with the party on immigration. Why? Because he felt Nigel Farage was “the only one shouting”. And that’s something to take stock of. Sometimes, people just appreciate someone who’ll stand up and fight, whether they agree on everything or not.
Driscoll knows that Reform will disappoint people. Because it won’t actually fix any of the key issues affecting people’s daily lives. And fixing things is “what really matters”. As he argued:
when they look at politicians, what the voting public want is two things: 1) Do I think these people could run the country? 2) Have these people got my back?…
And that’s the whole point of the detailed manifesto. It’s gotta fix something…
So yes, be angry, but have a plan that works.
Watch the full interview below:
By Ed Sykes
This post was originally published on Canary.
The ability to afford basic needs and wants in line with living a “dignified life” in the U.S. is increasingly out of reach, new research finds, naming wage stagnation and soaring prices as factors driving unaffordability. According to an analysis released by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) last week, a “minimal quality of life” is out of reach for the bottom 60…
This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.
This year, the Sunday Times rich list came out on the same day as financial regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed that 21% of UK people have less than £1,000 in their bank. The rich list shows that the 350 wealthiest families have maintained vast wealth at £773 billion, down only 3% from last year.
The figures will heighten calls for a wealth tax. Deputy leader of the Green Party Zack Polanski is running for the leadership. He has called for a 1% wealth tax on the richest 1%, rebalancing the economy by £75 billion per year. Ahead of Chancellor Rachel Reeves budget, 30 MPs called on her to introduce a wealth tax.
The FCA also found that one in ten people have no money in their bank whatsoever. They live entirely pay check to pay check. Meanwhile, the 14th richest family in the country is that of the Duke of Westminster. His own father said he was “born with the longest silver spoon anyone could ever have”.
According to the Sunday Times rich list, his family fortune now stands at £10bn. It illustrates what people mean when they say the economy is ‘rigged’. The cash goes back to Norman times when his ancestor was gifted loads of land by the King, with the fortune also increasing after a marriage.
Now the Duke has a property empire. He holds 300 acres of London as part of his global property ‘assets’. After inheriting his wealth, he is now profiteering on it through exploitation of the housing bubble, which successive governments have maintained. Despite housing being a common necessity to all that could be organised at cost price, Real Estate is the most profitable industry in the UK. Top companies average an astonishing £686,000 of profit per year per employee. That’s a private tax on homes at 23 times the UK average salary, per employee.
On top of that, the Duke avoided the 40% inheritance tax on the £9bn estate. If he had been taxed, it would have rebalanced the economy by almost as much as the Treasury collected in inheritance tax in the entire year. That’s because the estate is registered as a trust. What a joke.
Meanwhile, as the rich list dropped the FCA also found 12 million people in the UK feel overwhelmed or stressed because of their financial circumstance. We need to remove profit from our risk-free common essentials, while the private market can explore avenues in the rest of the economy.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
A stark reality is confronting British households, as recent data reveals an alarming trend in the ability to pay energy bills.
According to figures published by the Office for National Statistics, over 2.7% of direct debit payments for gas and electricity defaulted in April 2025. This statistic marks the highest default rate on energy bills since records began, and is triple the rate of just 0.9% before the onset of the global energy crisis.
Coupled with this, missed payments on loans have surged to nearly 3.9%, a worrying escalation from 2.1% during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic when many households experienced an unexpected influx of savings.
The trends indicate a deepening financial crisis for many households, with consumer campaigners sounding the alarm on the increasing energy debt that now stands at a staggering £3.8 billion—a figure that has ballooned by £2 billion since the start of 2022.
Gillian Cooper, a director at Citizens Advice, highlighted that nearly seven million households are now in debt to their energy suppliers. The situation calls for urgent government action, yet the response has been noticeably sluggish.
The issue of energy bills affordability is all the more pressing when one considers the broader context. Even as energy prices have moderated following the peaks triggered by the Ukraine conflict, UK households still grapple with some of the highest energy costs in Europe, a fact largely attributable to the nation’s heavy dependence on gas for both heating and electricity generation. Experts have described these situations as unsustainable and urged the government to expedite action to alleviate the burden on struggling families.
Simon Francis, coordinator at the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, stated that the current default rates should “ring alarm bells” within the Treasury, highlighting that the energy bill crisis is far from over. His commentary underscores the gravity of the situation, suggesting that without immediate and comprehensive reforms, more households will find themselves trapped in a cycle of mounting debt.
In response to the escalating crisis, the UK’s energy regulator, Ofgem, has proposed reforms aimed at easing the pressure on vulnerable households, including a call for energy suppliers to offer tariffs free of standing charges. Despite these proposals being discussed in consultation phases, the response has been slow, raising concerns among advocates who worry that the energy industry and the government are failing to prioritise the urgent needs of those affected.
Furthermore, a recent ONS report highlighted that around 59% of adults reported increased living costs over the past month, duplicitously signalling a broader economic malaise affecting everyday life.
Nearly one in five adults are now borrowing more or relying on credit to cover basics, creating a precarious balancing act for households already grappling with a tight financial situation. Alarmingly, around 5% of adults disclosed they had been unable to pay a direct debit or household bill recently, with younger adults more likely to report such struggles.
As the situation unravels, it’s crucial that the government and regulators take decisive action to protect vulnerable consumers, rather than allowing energy bills arrears to fester unchecked.
The rhetoric surrounding support must translate into tangible policies that genuinely alleviate the financial strain on families battered by rising costs. In a nation rich in resources, it is inexcusable for millions to battle against poverty while energy companies see profits soar amidst a backdrop of hardship.
A clear and unified response is not just necessary; it’s an absolute imperative for the well-being of countless British families now caught in a harrowing struggle to keep the lights on.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
As the world works to stop global heating by ending the use of fossil fuels in accordance with climate objectives, ensuring that everyone on Earth has a decent standard of living is possible if the world quickly and decisively implements emissions reductions, new research has found.
The study, led by research scholar Jarmo Kikstra with the Energy, Climate and Environment Program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), looked at energy scenarios that line up with both the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
“With climate change intensifying and billions of people still lacking basic necessities, addressing both challenges simultaneously is not only possible but essential,” a press release from IIASA said.
The post It’s Possible To End Global Poverty Without Compromising Climate Goals appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
Four children in every British classroom face the grim reality of hygiene poverty, with a staggering 21% of these children opting not to play with others out of fear of judgment regarding their cleanliness.
This distressing statistic comes from a recently released report, A Clean Start in Life, which highlights the dire situation in which almost 1.1 million children in the UK find themselves without access to basic hygiene necessities. In the wake of these findings, it is clear that many families are making the impossible choice between feeding their children and providing them with essential hygiene items.
The report reveals that a worrying 14% of children across Great Britain are affected by hygiene poverty, with some unable to attend school due to the lack of a clean uniform. Nearly 350,000 children have missed school because they were embarrassed about their appearance, including dirty clothes and unwashed hair.
According to the research, conducted by Children North East in collaboration with the charity In Kind Direct, 20% of children routinely go without basics such as toothpaste and deodorant.
Michael Gidney, CEO of In Kind Direct, articulated the heartbreaking choices families are forced to make:
Children are sharing toothbrushes, worrying about standing out at school for the wrong reasons, and families are having to choose between eating and keeping clean – impossible choices no one should have to face.
The report underscores how this silent crisis is undermining the joyful experiences of childhood and contributing to lower self-esteem among young people.
The impact of hygiene poverty extends beyond mere embarrassment; the report found that 26% of affected children experience low self-confidence, while 17% feel ashamed. Strikingly, 15% of these children have had to share hygiene products, often resulting in them wearing the same clothes for multiple days. Bullying remains a prevalent issue, with nearly one in ten experiencing negative treatment related to their hygiene.
The challenges are not confined to just individuals; rather, they permeate the entire educational environment.
A survey of 500 UK school staff indicated that around 30% observed children missing school due to hygiene poverty. Teachers are stepping up to fill the void left by government inaction, with many spending their own money on hygiene products and even washing uniforms to support families in need. On average, teachers are reported to have spent £27 over the past year on such initiatives.
The alarming contributory factors reveal a disheartening truth; eight out of ten educators believe that hygiene poverty has increased markedly in the past year.
Teachers have reported cleaner classrooms but with the heartbreaking footnote that many students arrive with dirty clothes and unkempt hair. The stigma attached to being unable to maintain personal hygiene not only impacts mental health but also limits children’s social interactions and overall school attendance.
Leigh Elliott, CEO at Children North East, lamented the stigma surrounding hygiene poverty:
The shame and stigma attached to wearing a dirty school uniform or having greasy hair can be an unbearable burden for our children and young people. Every baby, child, and young person should be able to live a happy, healthy childhood.
This sentiment resonates deeply in light of the findings that children are not just facing challenges in their social lives but also struggling with their mental health as a result of inadequate access to basic hygiene.
As discussions around child poverty gain traction, the call for government action is becoming increasingly urgent.
Campaigns led by organisations like The Hygiene Bank and small businesses demand that the government address hygiene poverty as part of its child poverty strategy. This issue must be addressed not only as a matter of welfare but as a fundamental aspect of ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive in their educational journey.
The reality of hygiene poverty is a crisis that should not be hidden behind closed doors. Rather, as a society, we must foster understanding and compassion, pushing for the necessary changes to lift families out of this cycle of poverty.
A collective effort is crucial if we want to safeguard children’s dignity and ensure they have the chance to grow up free from the added burdens of shame and stigma.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
By: Kevin Hardy
See original post here
To California Democratic state Sen. David Cortese, the idea of gaining Republican support for a bill to provide cash to certain residents would have seemed impossible just a few years ago.
But his proposed legislation to offer $1,000 per month to homeless youth has so far received bipartisan support in the state Senate.
“It’s being embraced,” said Cortese. “This was not even considered possible five years ago.”
Cortese is among more than 20 Democratic lawmakers from 17 states launching Legislators for a Guaranteed Income on Tuesday to advocate for programs that provide direct, regular cash payments to lower-income residents to help alleviate poverty. They join a network of more than 245 mayors and county officials who have pursued dozens of basic income pilot projects across the country.
Washington state House Speaker Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, and Washington state Senator T’wina Nobles, D-Fircrest, are among the founding members of the state lawmaker group.
The lawmakers want to see states play a larger role in guaranteed income programs, which aim to help residents in need by handing out no-strings-attached cash.
The concept of basic income programs took off following a 2019 experiment in Stockton, California. There, 125 individuals received $500 per month for two years, which researchers found improved their financial stability and health.
Michael Tubbs, the former Democratic mayor of Stockton and current executive chairman of Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, said these kinds of efforts are more important now as economic uncertainty and high prices squeeze the most vulnerable people.
“The work around guaranteed income is moving from cities and counties to states,” he said. “We’re going to be organizing state officials across the country who see what we all see: that affordability is an issue, that the Trump tariffs and gross mismanagement of the economy has made the problem even worse.”
While the concept has gained traction across the country, Republican state lawmakers have pushed bills to ban basic income programs, arguing they disincentivize work.
Last year, then-state Sen. John Wiik sponsored successful legislation banning South Dakota localities from launching basic income programs. At the time, the Republican said he was worried about people growing dependent upon the government.
“So, if you get people addicted to just getting a check from the government, it’s going to be really hard to take that away,” he told Stateline.
Legislators for a Guaranteed Income says its 23 members have so far introduced 25 bills across 11 states.
Those include Cortese’s proposed legislation in California to create a new program to help homeless youth transition out of high school.
Eligible students would receive four monthly payments of $1,000 each beginning in May. That bill, expected to cost $40 million to $50 million, has passed through two state Senate committees.
Cortese previously advocated for a 2023 California program that was the nation’s first state-funded pilot of a basic income program targeting former foster youth. He pointed to research showing basic income programs supplement, rather than replace, the need for work. And he said growing these programs can eventually reduce costs for other social safety net programs.
“I’m so pleased to see the proliferation that we’ve seen so far,” he said. “I think that it will become ubiquitous as a way of doing things and that’s going to outlast me and my career.”
In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta said he’s still exploring details on legislation for a basic income program there.
He said pilot projects across the country have proven that people pay rent, buy groceries and invest in small businesses when they have more financial freedom.
“So, this isn’t really some big experiment,” he said. “It is a proven way to reduce poverty, improve health care, boost our local economies and really get a real return on that investment.”
Kenyatta said so-called trickle-down policies that aim to boost business interests and high earners have failed many ordinary people.
“But basic income really flips that equation on its head,” he said. “It’s not about charity. It’s about power, and about giving people the power and the resources to breathe.”
Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.
This article was first published by Stateline, part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) under Keir Starmer’s Labour government is preparing to strip financial support from 670,000 households that are already in poverty – in what can only be described as another ruthless act of state-sanctioned cruelty.
They’re the latest figures to come out as anger grows over Labour’s proposed DWP Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit cuts.
These households—each with at least one member living with a disability—stand to lose up to £390 per month, according to internal DWP projections. So, these cuts will not fall on the wealthy or the comfortable.
No, they will fall squarely on people already living on the edge: carers, people with chronic illnesses, individuals managing severe mental health conditions, and those too unwell to work.
Stripping them of vital support will not encourage them into employment; it will simply impoverish them further, punish them for being ill, and heap pressure on an already threadbare social safety net.
The move, buried within the government’s so-called “modernisation” of DWP PIP and changes to Universal Credit, shows a disturbing contempt for disabled people. The changes appear to be designed not to support those in need, but to appease a hardline fiscal agenda—an agenda that views the sick and disabled as financial burdens to be slashed from the ledger.
The most damning revelation is that the government knows the damage it will cause. These aren’t speculative figures from campaigners or charities. They come directly from within the DWP. They know this policy will devastate lives—and they plan to press ahead regardless.
For the Labour Party, once seen as a defender of the DWP welfare state, this marks a shameful betrayal. Keir Starmer has not only failed to challenge the Tory-era narrative that people on benefits are to blame for their poverty—he has embraced it. He has chosen to champion “tough choices” over compassion, and now disabled people must pay the price.
Critics have rightly condemned the move as morally reprehensible. The Disability Benefits Consortium has warned that the changes risk stripping away the bare minimum support many rely on just to survive. Meanwhile, organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation point to the obvious: taking money from people in poverty deepens poverty.
This is not reform. This is not progress. This is a government waging war on the poorest, hitting disabled people with a double injustice—first of circumstance, then of DWP policy. In a civilised society, we measure our success not by GDP or fiscal targets, but by how we treat those who need help the most.
Labour had a chance to chart a new path. Instead, it has chosen to continue the punitive legacy of austerity. Disabled people will pay the price—with their health, their dignity, and, in some cases, their lives.
Featured image via the Canary
By Steve Topple
This post was originally published on Canary.
On May 7, the AP headlined “House GOP backing off some Medicaid cuts as report shows millions of people would lose health care,” and reported:
House Republicans appear to be backing off some, but not all, of the steep reductions to the Medicaid program as part of their big tax breaks bill, as they run into resistance from more centrist GOP lawmakers opposed to ending nearly-free health care coverage for their constituents back home.
This is as a new report out Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that millions of Americans would lose Medicaid coverage under the various proposals being circulated by Republicans as cost-saving measures. House Republicans are scrounging to come up with as much as $1.5 trillion in cuts across federal government health, food stamp and other programs, to offset the revenue lost for some $4.5 trillion in tax breaks.
“Under each of those options, Medicaid enrollment would decrease and the number of people without health insurance would increase,” the CBO report said.
The Republican President Donald Trump presented to Congress on May 2 his proposed federal budget for 2026.
On May 2nd the U.S. White House — which has made clear that it’s beating the drums for war against China — headlined “Office of Management and Budget Releases the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Skinny Budget” and reported that “The Budget, which reduces non-defense discretionary by $163 billion or 23 percent from the 2025 enacted level, guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security. … Defense spending would increase by 13 percent, and appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security would increase by nearly 65 percent, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources they need to complete the mission.” His budget “guts a weaponized deep state while providing historic increases for defense and border security,” and health care for the poor is part of that “weaponized deep state” he is referring to, which Republicans say must be cut in order to provide these “historic increases for defense and border security.”
All of those increases would go towards paying the suppliers (such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc.) to the enormously militarized police-state, at the very same time that the health, education, and welfare, of the voters, will be reduced by $165 billion or 23% below the current level.
Here are some more details regarding what that “weaponized deep state” (to use the White House’s phrase for it) consists of:
The White House’s May 2 “Major Discretionary Funding Changes” says that:
For Defense spending [ONLY the Defense Department, NOT including the approximately $700 billion yearly of annual U.S. military spending that is being paid out from OTHER federal Departments], the President proposes an increase of 13 percent to $1.01 trillion for FY 2026; for Homeland Security, the Budget commits a historic $175 billion investment to, at long last, fully secure our border. Under the proposal, a portion of these increases — at least $325 billion assumed in the budget resolution recently agreed to by the Congress — would be provided through reconciliation, to ensure that our military and other agencies repelling the invasion of our border have the resources needed to complete the mission. This mandatory supplement to discretionary spending would enable the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, among others, to clean up the mess President Trump inherited from the prior administration and harden the border and other defenses to protect America from foreign invasion.
Therefore, approximately $1.7T of total military spending is being sought by Trump (including the 13% increase to the Defense Department), while he is proposing to cut all other discretionary spending (which had previously constituted the other 47% of all U.S. Government annually appropriated federal spending (and which was previously around $800B per year) to be cut down now by $165B to around $635B total, or about 37% of all annually appropriated federal spending. Only the +13% for the Pentagon, and the +65% for the Department of Homeland Security, are increased, while everything else is getting cut drastically in order to make those increases possible.
So, while around $1.7T will be going to the military, only around $635B will be going to pay all of the other discretionary spending (including any non-military portion of the DHS). That will cut the percentage of the Government’s discretionary spending on non-military purposes down from its prior approximately 47% of the federal budget, down to approximately 37% of all of the Government’s discretionary spending.
Medicaid — health care to the poor — is on their chopping block so that the Defense Department portion of that $1.7T military cost that the U.S. Government will be paying in 2026 will be increased by 13% (and so that any non-military portion of the 65% increase to the DHS will also be paid).
Looking further at WHAT is being cut the most, the White House document shows that the only part of the Department of Education that will be increased — by $60 million — is “Charter Schools,” the part that privatizes public-school education, which is the part that billionaires want to increase (since their hedge funds etc. will be owning much of it). Meanwhile, Title 1 and K-12 federal spending will be reduced by $4.535 billion; and the program to incentivize colleges to “to engage with low-income students and increase access” will be cut by $1.579 B.
The Department of Health and Human Services will cut $4.035 from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), $1.970B from the Refugee and Unaccompanied Alien Children Program, $1.732B from AIDS and financial-assistance health programs, $3.588B from CDC and Prevention programs, $17.965B from NIH, $1.065B from programs working with addicts to help them reduce their addictions.
The Environmental Protection Agency will be cut $2.460B for Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds, and under a billion dollars each for such programs as the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be cut by $26.718B that goes to programs for the poor.
The Treasury Department will be cut by $2.488B for the IRS.
The National Science Foundation will be cut by $3.479B and by an additional $1.130B for “Broadening Participation.”
Most of the other cuts will be below a billion dollars.
Are these massive reallocations away from programs to the needy (and from some other areas such as scientific research), into instead the military and border security, reflections of the public’s will in a democracy?
On February 26, I reported that:
On February 14, the AP headlined “Where US adults think the government is spending too much, according to AP-NORC polling,” and listed in rank-order according to the opposite (“spending too little”) the following 8 Government functions: 1. Social Security; 2. Medicare; 3. Education; 4. Assistance to the poor; 5. Medicaid; 6. Border security; 7. Federal law enforcement; 8. The Military. That’s right: the American public (and by an overwhelming margin) are THE LEAST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on the military, and the MOST SUPPORTIVE of spending more money on Social Security, Medicare, Education, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid (the five functions the Republican Party has always been the most vocal to call “waste, fraud, and abuse” and try to cut). Meanwhile, The Military, which actually receives 53% (and in the latest year far more than that) of the money that the Congress allocates each year and gets signed into law by the President, keeps getting, each year, over 50% of the annually appropriated federal funds.
An important point to be made here is that both #s 4&5, Assistance to the poor, and Medicaid, are “discretionary federal spending” (i.e., controlled by the annual appropriations that get voted into law each year), whereas #s 1&2 (Social Security and Medicare) are “mandatory federal spending” (i.e., NOT controlled by Congress and the President). So, Trump and the Republicans are going after the poor because they CAN; they can’t (at least as-of YET) reduce or eliminate Social Security and Medicare. However, by now, it is crystal clear that Trump’s Presidency will be an enormous boon to America’s billionaires, and an enormous bane to the nation’s poor. The aristocratic ideology has always been: to get rid of poverty, we must get rid of the poor — work them so hard they will go away (let them seek ‘refugee’ status SOMEWHERE ELSE).
Trump is increasing the military and border security, and decreasing education, assistance to the poor, Medicaid, federal law enforcement, and even Social Security and Medicare (the latter two by laying off many of the people who staff those bureaucracies).
Therefore, the Republicans’ effort to cut health care to the poor is merely a part of their overall effort to cut Governmental help to the nation’s poor; and all of this is being done in order to increase federal purchases of armaments from corporations such as Lockheed Martin, who make all or most of their profits only by selling to the U.S. Government and to its allied Governments.
However, on many levels, the greatest amount of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and sheer corruption, is actually in the only federal Department that has never been audited: the Defense Department. This means that Republicans are reallocating from the neediest to the greediest. (NOTE: I have equal contempt for both of America’s political Parties, but this reallocation is specifically a Republican specialty. So, this isn’t merely a matter of opinion. It is a historical fact.)
The post Why the Republican Party Is Trying to Cut Healthcare to the Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
At Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday 7 May, Lib Dem MP Roz Savage challenged Labour Party PM Keir Starmer on inequality:
Under the Conservatives, inequality has surged with now over 14 million people… living in poverty while the richest 1% see their incomes soar. Of the developed countries we are now the ninth most unequal. Will the prime minister listen to the Liberal Democrats, the public and many of his own backbenchers and commit to reversing changes such as PIP, the winter fuel allowance and two child benefit cap and introduce clear poverty reduction targets to ensure that any economic growth benefits those who need it most.
Indeed, from 2024-2025 UK billionaires saw their wealth go up from an already staggering £170 billion to £181 billion. Meanwhile, the least well off 10% are literally in debt. Nonetheless, Starmer is upholding the Tories’ two child benefit cap (restricting benefits to two children). Analysis from Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) shows the cap will increase the number of children living in poverty from 4.5 million to 4.8 million.
Starmer also cut the winter fuel allowance for some of the least well off pensioners. Yet the prime minister’s own government admitted that the cut will plunge 250,000 more elders into poverty by 2029-30.
As if austerity 2.0 wasn’t already well on its way, Starmer is also cutting support for disabled people. Again, the government’s own analysis shows that this will impact 700,000 families who are already in poverty.
Then, at PMQs, Starmer had the gall to say:
Mr Speaker, we’re already delivering 750 free breakfast clubs boosting the minimum wage for over 3 million that’s the lowest paid workers in our country and the child poverty task force is looking at every lever that can be pulled
Also, the status quo for free school meals is unhealthy sponsors such as Greggs and Kellogg’s.
Starmer has raised the minimum wage by around 80p per hour. Does he expect that to solve the richest 1% owning more than 70% of us? And this approach arguably doesn’t make sense because it treats all employers as the same. When in fact, the UK’s top 100 FTSE companies make an average of £64,000 profit annually per employee. That’s a private tax of double the UK’s average yearly wage for every single employee at those corporations.
Instead, Labour could make a company’s minimum wage relative to their profits. This would enable small and up and coming businesses to pay less and mean that employees aren’t being ripped off by big business. It would link employee pay directly to the company’s performance, driving up productivity.
Starmer showed yet again at PMQs that he is taking us in the wrong direction.
Featured image via House of Commons
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
So long as Cubans’ rage and despair remain, the government cannot afford to curtail emigration. And there is no end in sight.
This post was originally published on Dissent Magazine.
The fact that people are facing hunger and hardship cost the UK economy, public finances and public services at least £75.6 billion in 2022/23, according to a new report from the Trussell Trust.
The charity broke down the figure. £38.2 billion is from the loss of productivity and employment, most prominently because people undergoing hunger and hardship are ‘scarred’ by the experience, whereby it’s more difficult to sustain a job.
In turn, that loss of employment leads to lower tax revenues and higher welfare payments, costing £23.7 billion.
Hunger and hardship further has an impact on public services, at a cost of £13.7 billion, with about half of that coming from increased healthcare costs. The Labour government should particularly listen here given their NHS plan is centred on ‘prevention’. Another portion of this figure comes from increased education spending and childcare spending. And £3 billion of this sum comes from increased spending on homelessness services.
The report points out that a “widening gap between the rich and poor is creating divisions and tensions between people at a community level”. Indeed, Oxfam has found that 1% of the country has more money than 70%. Polling from the Fairness Foundation identified that 63% of Britons believe the super rich have too much power over politics.
Trussell offers p9 recommendations to remedy the impact and cost of hunger and hardship. One is the ‘Essentials Guarantee’, which a number of charities have been campaigning for. This would mean that no one in the country goes without the essentials they need to survive. It would bring 2.2 million people out of hunger and hardship by 2026/27 and drive £17.6 billion in economic benefits. It makes sense: if people receive what they need to live they will automatically spend that in the economy, driving growth.
Another recommendation is scrapping the two child benefit cap. This would boost the economy by around £3.1 billion and lift 470,000 children out of hunger and hardship by 2026/27.
The Trussell report found that 9.3 million people, including 3 million children, faced hunger and hardship in 2022/23. Corresponding with an increase in inequality, 46% more children now experience hunger and hardship than a decade ago.
Money equates to real material resources in the economy and if rich people’s portion of the wealth keeps growing, it’s at the expense of the poorest. Last year, UK billionaires saw their wealth increase by £35 million every single day. Meanwhile, Trussell estimates that an additional 425,000 people will face hunger and hardship by 2026/2027.
The charity identified the rate of different groups that are facing hunger and hardship:
It’s clear that Labour’s planned welfare cuts to disabled people’s support is only going to make the issue significantly worse. As well as the human cost, there is a domino effect on the economy, delivering negative outcomes for us all.
Featured image via the Canary
By James Wright
This post was originally published on Canary.
Original article here.
By: Greg Childress
A bill barring North Carolina cities and counties from adopting or enforcing guaranteed income programs won approval in the state House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on Tuesday.
House Bill 859 is sponsored by Rep. Cody Honeycutt (R-Montgomery). It would prohibit the establishment of guaranteed income programs without express authorization of “general or local law” — something that would require approval from the General Assembly. It was referred to the House State and Local Government Committee without discussion.
Guaranteed income programs provide individuals or families with cash payments generally with no strings attached. The cash payments may be used for necessities such as food, childcare expenses, medicine and transportation.
The goal is to provide low-income families or individuals with a steady income to increase financial stability.
Supporters see such programs as a way to help lift families and individuals out of poverty and to address income inequality. Meanwhile, critics argue that such programs create a disincentive for work, are expensive and will not reduce dependency on welfare programs as some supporters claim.
Under HB 859, programs under which an individual is required to seek reemployment, perform work or attend training as a condition of a cash payment would be exempt from the law.
In North Carolina, the City of Durham launched a guaranteed income pilot program for formerly incarcerated individuals in March 2022 titled Excel. The pilot ended in August 2024.
Assistant Durham City Manager Karmisha Wallace told NC Newsline that the city council allocated $1 million this fiscal year to continue the program, which the city would manage. A nonprofit administered the pilot program.
Wallace said the city has neither determined the amount of the monthly stipend under the new program nor the number of participants. Under the pilot, 109 formerly incarcerated individuals received $600 a month for one year.
She said training for justice involved individuals is already available through other city-run programs in which they participate.
“We already have programming in place now that help justice involved individuals get IDs, get jobs, secure medical support, transportation and that sort of thing,” Wallace said.
Wallace said HB 859 could be problematic.
“I think it’s safe to say the city is concerned about any legislation that restricts our abilities to meet the needs of our constituents,” Wallace said.
According to the Durham County website, the county is launching a guaranteed income pilot program called DCo Thrives that will provide $750 per month for one year to 125 randomly selected low-income families. That program is funded by the American Rescue Plan Act and will be administered by Durham Children’s Initiative, according to the website.
Guaranteed income programs gained steam during the pandemic. Large cities such as Los Angeles and Atlanta are among those that launched pilot programs.
Michael D. Tubbs, founder and chair or Mayors & Counties for a Guaranteed Income, said last summer in a letter defending a program in Harris County (home to the city of Houston) that was blocked by the Texas Supreme Court that there were more than 100 pilot programs nationwide in-process or having concluded with “great success.”
Tubbs is a former Stockton, California mayor who helped launch one of the country’s first guaranteed income programs in 2019.
The Harris County program is still on hold due to the legal challenge. Last week, the Texas Senate approved a bill to ban local governments from adopting such programs.
This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.
