Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump says he’s ‘won affordability.’ The data shows a different story.

Published

on

ByJosh Bivens

President Donald Trump has said some strikingly out-of-touch things about affordability: that it’s a “hoax,” he’s “solved it” and he’s “won affordability.” In his State of the Union address, he even said “prices are plummeting downward.” U.S. families know this is nonsense. But to see how much Trump’s policies will erode affordability in the coming years, you must understand that affordability isn’t just about prices.

Affordability is the outcome of a race between incomes and prices. And for typical families, the Trump agenda is near-guaranteed to harm their incomes far more than it can possibly reduce their prices.

For typical families, the Trump agenda is near-guaranteed to harm their incomes far more than it can possibly reduce their prices.

Even judged by the movement of prices alone, Trump’s record on affordability is poor. Inflation fell from 8.0% to 3.0% in the final two years of the Biden administration. This rapid downward movement slowed to a crawl in the first year of Trump’s second term, with inflation falling from 3.0% to just over 2.6%.

There are clear policy reasons why progress in reducing inflation has slowed. Electricity prices have surged as the Trump administration has ended subsidies for renewable generation passed during the Biden administration.  The Trump tax cuts passed in the president’s first term were part of a law that gouged loopholes in the tax code, including inviting pharmaceutical companies to offshore their production and import back into the United States. Last year the Trump administration put tariffs on these offshored pharmaceuticals, pushing up their costs. When the administration failed to extend Obamacare subsidies for people buying health insurance through the exchanges, healthier enrollees who could afford to began opting out, driving up prices for everybody left in the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

And these are not the only ways that Trump administration policies have intensified affordability issues for ordinary Americans.

That failure to extend Obamacare subsidies did more than lead to higher market prices for exchange insurance plans. It also siphoned income away from families that could have been used to defray the cost of buying health insurance. Instead, out-of-pocket burdens spiked. Even bigger harm looms for more vulnerable families as the Republican tax and spending megabill, known as Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is poised to cut Medicaid and food stamps by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. These cuts effectively remove income from the pockets of the most vulnerable. This explains why the bill reduced affordability for the bottom 40% of families in this country.

It is hard to make a bunch of changes to the nation’s tax and spending laws that add $4 trillion to the nation’s debt and still somehow manage to make 40% of the population worse off. If you’re borrowing it all anyhow, why not at least give something to the worst-off among us?

Finally, even as inflation fell slightly in 2025, wage growth adjusted for inflation (or real wages) also slowed. For the lowest-wage workers, these real wages actually declined. The reason is simple: The labor market cooled in 2025. This was no accident. The administration’s federal workforce cuts, deportation agenda and the chaos of the Trump tariff policy and approach to the Federal Reserve all contributed to labor market sluggishness. And workers in the bottom half of the wage distribution need sustained and very low unemployment rates to gain any leverage with employers when they ask for higher wages. They had this leverage early in the post-pandemic recovery, but it’s been lost. The labor market would have cooled even faster in 2025 had there not been a ramp-up in spending associated with the frenzied buildout of artificial intelligence firms and the related stock market boom (which could still prove to be a bubble).

With all that in mind about the scale of Trump policies’ negative impact on affordability, now let’s consider what genuine wins in affordability would look like.

A chief place to start: attacks on the influence that has most harmed U.S. families’ affordability in recent decades — the rise in inequality that has funneled income away from the bottom and middle toward the top. This expansion in inequality was policy-generatedso it can be reversed by different policy choices. Yet the Trump administration has doubled down on strategies that have increased inequality by hamstringing workers’ rights to organize unions and bargain collectively and rolling back important labor standards, such as minimum wages. (If you want more examples, my Economic Policy Institute colleagues and I identified 47 ways Trump has made life less affordable for Americans over the past year.)

The first step in a good-faith affordability agenda would be restoring the Medicaid and SNAP funds cut in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The first step in a good-faith affordability agenda would be restoring the Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds cut in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The obvious way to pay for this restoration? By sharply raising taxes on the ultra-rich.

Besides being a key source of revenue to pay for affordability-enhancing measures such as Medicaid and food stamps, raising taxes on the ultra-rich would lower pre-tax inequality. Essentially, these higher taxes would blunt the incentive for the ultra-rich to rig the rules of the economy in order to claim as much income as they can at the expense of typical families. This strategy works — across time and across countries there is ample evidence that higher taxes on the rich keep pre-tax inequality in check.

The economic struggles of typical U.S. families deserve serious solutions, not political buzzwords. Unfortunately, the policies the Trump administration has undertaken are making Americans’ economic struggles harder, not easier.

Josh Bivens

Josh Bivens is the chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Joe Scarborough slams GOP for ‘screwing their own constituents’ to protect ICE

Published

on

Joe Scarborough slams GOP for ‘screwing their own constituents’ to protect ICE

Joe Scarborough slammed Republicans on Thursday’s “Morning Joe” for their repeated refusal to partner with Democrats to reopen some parts of the Department of Homeland Securityas the showdown in Washington, D.C., over federal immigration enforcement continues.

“Sometimes things are complicated and confusing,” Scarborough said. “This is not confusing.”

As he explained, Democrats are currently pushing legislation to partially fund some agencies inside DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agencyor FEMA. However, in order to pass those bills, Democrats, as the minority party, need Republicans to join in on the effort.

“If everybody agrees on something, they can pass it with unanimous consent. So Democrats keep going to the Senate floor,” Scarborough said, and “Republicans stand up and say no.”

A majority of the department’s funding has been withheld since the shutdown began on Feb. 14, when Democrats demanded a major overhaul of the agency carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation effort.

Last week, more than 100,000 DHS workers missed their first full paycheck. Despite not being paid, many of those workers are considered essential employees and therefore are required to work during the shutdown.

“Republicans keep killing these opportunities to pay these people for the work they’re doing to keep us safe, in the air, on the seas,” Scarborough said. “All of this is to allow ICE to continue being the out-of-control, reckless agency that it was under Kristi Noem.”

Scarborough said he couldn’t understand “why Republicans are screwing their own constituents every single day: businesspeople that have to fly, families that have to get home to see their mothers or their fathers or the grandmothers or the grandfathers, parents that need to get to the kids to help with a child that may be sick.”

“I mean, why are Republicans doing this?” he asked. “Why aren’t they stopping this? Why is ICE so important to them that they are screwing their own constituents to protect guys in masks?”

You can watch Scarborough’s analysis in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The years I spent defending César Chávez make me feel like a fool

Published

on

The years I spent defending César Chávez make me feel like a fool

Dolores Huerta and I shared the stage in November at a Chicago event honoring Latino leaders and journalists from the United States. What I remember most about that day was seeing the ballroom of mostly Latina women lining up to thank the co-founder of United Farm Workers and get her thoughts on how to respond to the way our communities have been targeted.

ICE was continuing its raids in Chicago, but here was Huerta, 95 years old, buoying us all.

I remember the servers, too, some of whom stopped after the event to take photos with Huerta and share that their local union uses the same labor-organizing tactics she did with the UFW. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was continuing its raids in Chicago, but here was Huerta, 95 years old, buoying us all. Here was our elder, imploring us to never give up, to keep organizing and fighting. If possible. Not as a slogan, but as something living and breathing in that room.

The New York Times on Wednesday published a multiyear investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of minors and rape against the other co-founder of the UFW: César Chávez. In part because I grew up with such a deep admiration of Chávez, reading Ana Murguia and Debra Rojas, both 66 years old, describe the pain they said Chávez inflicted upon them stopped me cold.

Then Huerta revealed that she had two unwelcome encounters with Chávez, one of which she described as rape. The two encounters, she said, resulted in two babies, whom she gave away to others to raise.

A black and white, archival photo showing Dolores Huerta, left, and Cesar Chavez — as well as other people — holding photos of the conditions that farmworkers endure in San Joaquin Valley farm labor camps.
United Farm Workers leaders Dolores Huerta, left, and Cesar Chavez at a news conference outside a U.S. District Court on Nov. 21, 1989, in Fresno, Calif. Richard Darby / Fresno Bee file / Tribune News Service via Getty Images

“I carried this secret for as long as I did,” she wrote, “because building the movement and securing farmworker rights was my life’s work.”

I sat with that for a long time.

In the 1970s, when I was a young boy who had just moved from Puerto Rico to the Bronx, Chávez was one of the first brown faces I saw on television. Few Latino men seemed to be fighting for something on television, but he was. I will forever argue that U.S. Latinos are not a monolith, but at a time when this country painted us as one, Chávez felt like our sole political leader.

“He represented the best of us — and by us, I mean Latino America,” said Manny Fernandez, the Times’ California editor and co-writer of Wednesday’s bombshell of a story. “And to discover that Chavez had this dark side is disturbing. But we do need to know who our heroes are.”

Chávez eventually reached the pinnacle of being the most famous Latino in the U.S. He passed away in 1993 and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, and his bust graced the Biden Oval Office. His quotes about community and the fight for social justice were part of the U.S. Latino lexicon. And the Times story about him being a predator and Huerta’s confirmation of it have sent shockwaves throughout the community.

To discover that Chavez had this dark side is disturbing. But we do need to know who our heroes are.

the new york times’ manny fernandez

Those of us who have studied his life in detail already know he was incredibly complicated. Biographers have documented his extramarital affairs, his authoritarian leadership and purges of his staff. Chávez once thought of undocumented workers as union scabs, a fact that right-wingers love to cite. But nothing prepared me for what Murguia, Rojas and Huerta revealed. They did not describe a complicated man. They described a rapist — a rapist of minors.

Ace Gustavo Arellano”https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-18/cesar-chavez-myth-abuse-allegations”>wrote in his column for the Los Angeles Times: “Much of the Latino civil rights, political and educational ecosystem will have to grapple with why they held up Chávez as a paragon of virtue for too long above others just as deserving and, as it turns out, nowhere near as compromised. In any event, the myth has been punctured.”

Chávez’s complexity was something I explored in the past and at times, defended. Regarding his immigration views, in 2021, I finally found a 1974 letter proving that he shifted his position and was not the anti-immigrant hard-liner the right tried to make him. I spent years making sure that history was accurate. And even though I was defending his views on immigration, and not defending him against allegations of rape, reading the three women’s accounts Wednesday still left me feeling like a fool.

Dolores Huerta, left, and Julio Ricardo Varela smiling for a picture.
Dolores Huerta, left, and Julio Ricardo Varela at the ¡BRAVO! National Awards Gala on Nov. 13, 2025, in Chicago. Courtesy Julio Ricardo Varela

The Chávez family released a statement that said, in part: “Our family is shocked and saddened to learn of news that our father, Cesar Chavez, engaged in sexual impropriety with women and minors nearly 50 years ago. As a family steeped in the values of equity and justice, we honor the voices of those who feel unheard and who report sexual abuse. This is deeply painful to our family.”

After an acknowledgement that his family has its own good memories of him, the statement said, “We hope these matters are approached thoughtfully and fairly.”

Chávez’s name adorns an untold number of streets, schools and parks in this country. His name should be removed from all of those places: every one.

“Everything should be named for the martyrs of the farm workers movement,” Huerta told Latino USA. “Every name should be named after them.”

By Thursday, California had already begun the process of changing César Chávez Day, March 31, to Farmworkers Day.

In that same Latino USA interview, Huerta said it was the courage of women such as Murguia and Rojas who gave her the courage to speak out now.

I used to see Chávez as a hero, but now I realize that our greatest heroes are the ones who speak out even if it means revealing their own pain. What Huerta did was brave, and it is no surprise that she has received an outpouring of love and support. She did not have to say a word. She could have kept her silence, and she would still be loved and admired. Instead, at 95 years old, she chose truth over mythology. That’s the most radical act of love for a community there is.

Julio Ricardo Varela is the founder of “The Latino Newsletter” and co-editor of “Pressing Issues from Free Press.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Fired FBI agents claim ‘improper acts of political retribution’ by Trump administration

Published

on

Fired FBI agents claim ‘improper acts of political retribution’ by Trump administration

Former FBI agents allege they were illegally fired for having worked on an investigation that led to President Donald Trump’s indictment in the 2020 election interference case.

In a new lawsuit filed Thursday in Washington, two ex-agents said their constitutional rights were violated by “improper acts of political retribution.”

The civil suitbrought by plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms (John Does 1 and 2), names FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the FBI and the Justice Department as defendants.

It’s the latest legal responseto the second Trump administration’s revenge campaign, which has included firing people who did their jobs probing potential crimes that happened to include the actions of the once and future president.

“Based merely on Plaintiffs’ involvement in an investigation implicating then-former President Trump initiated during the Biden Administration, Defendant Kash Patel, Defendant Pamela J. Bondi, and elected officials with whom they acted in concert perceived Plaintiffs to be politically disloyal to President Trump and therefore targeted Plaintiffs for removal,” the former agents alleged in their complaint.

They said their firings were illegal because they were based on the perception that they weren’t Trump supporters.

They’re seeking a court declaration that their rights were violated, as well as immediate reinstatement with protection from further action against them without due process. They said they were fired without evidence, notice or the opportunity for a hearing.

The government defendants will have an opportunity to respond in court.

The election interference case was one of two federal prosecutions brought against Trump. The DOJ stopped pursuing both cases after his 2024 election win, due to the department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending