We all want an America where hard work pays, families thrive, and the American Dream is real again. Greatness starts with dignity for workers, safety for communities, and a fair shot for every kid. The promise is simple: if you put in the work, you should be able to raise a family and get ahead—period.
So why do we cling to what is obviously not working for everyday people?
Reflect on the good ole’ days of 2019, and the status of basic societal pillars.
- Schools — National reading scores were slipping even before the pandemic (2019 NAEP showed declines), even as graduation rates had risen over the decade.
- Healthcare — We spent far more than peer nations while getting worse overall outcomes.
- Housing — Costs were straining low- and middle-income households; the supply of low-rent units had fallen and cost burdens were rising.
- Higher education — Student debt hit about $1.6T by mid-2019, with burdens concentrated among lower-income and first-gen students.
- Energy — The U.S. maintained energy-sector tax preferences (including for fossil fuels), and global analyses that include unpriced pollution show very large “post-tax” fossil subsidies in 2019. Meanwhile, U.S. emissions remained a major health and climate threat.
I would consider these economic indicators to be alarming. They are big red flashing signs that the economy isn’t working for everyone. Stop and consider your own life for a moment. What is working well for you? What isn’t? And what actions are you taking to change what isn’t working in your life?
For most of us, making change is really, really hard. We think about it for a fleeting moment and then it passes—we keep doing what we have to do to survive inside the current societal and economic systems.
The economic models that once turbo-charged a (mostly white) mid-century middle class are now producing a reality where many working people can’t get ahead.
Stay with me for a quick detour into Buddhism—then we’ll come right back to the U.S. economy.
In Buddhism, there’s an ideal called “right livelihood.” Five livelihoods to avoid are often named as:
- The business of butchery, killing animals
- The trade in weapons, explosives and instruments of death
- Trading in humans, slavery, or the flesh of beings for slaughter
- Trading in poisons and toxic substances
- Trading in intoxicants and drugs
Back to the U.S. economy. Look at where outsized profits often flow in our system. In modern terms, these map to:
- Meat packing / big-game tourism
- Defense industry
- Prison industry
- Chemical & energy industries
- Big Pharma
And of course, there are illegal versions, too:
- Poaching and wildlife smuggling
- Mercenaries, illicit arms
- Human trafficking
- Toxic dumping
- Drug cartels
When I first discovered the “right livelihood” list, I wanted to adopt it immediately. I wasn’t working in those trades. I wasn’t invested in the stock market. But I ate meat. I took prescription pills. I drank alcohol. Hmm.
The more I studied these high-profit sectors, the more it occurred to me: our economy is breaking because it fails to reward life-giving outcomes. That’s part of why we’re in a transformative (disruptive) time. (For example, in 2019 the U.S. still emitted over 6.5 billion metric tons CO₂-equivalent, and global health research linked millions of premature deaths each year to pollution—costs the market often doesn’t price in.)
So why are we clinging to a system that was set up to fail us? Why not grieve the loss and begin building what comes next—something more wholesome?
That’s what a future economy could incentivize: wholesome outcomes. What would we have to change about ourselves to do it?
Here’s where our resistance to change matters most and why we cling to what is obviously not working for all.
The system may be broken and even irreparable. But we know it. We work around it. We cling to it because it’s familiar. We resist change not because we don’t want it, but because it is uncertain. And certainty feels like safety, even when that safety is bad for us.

To overcome our human default, we need three things:
- A future worth the risk. Picture it vividly. Most of all, FEEL it deeply in your bones.
- A community of support. Compare visions, swap tools, back each other up.
- Contagious joy. Communicate with clarity and delight—enough to short-circuit algorithms that prey on outrage and keep us stuck.
In short: a worthy vision, a supportive community, and joy. Then more joy.
Practice makes progress. If we dedicate ourselves to becoming this—a little more each day—we’re far more likely to succeed.
Or… we can keep clinging to what is.
It’s our choice.
The Economic Models that Made America Great Are Broken was first published on Debilyn Molineaux's Substack platform and republished with permission.
Debilyn Molineaux is a storyteller, collaborator & connector. For 20 years, she led cross-partisan organizations. She currently holds several roles, including catalyst for JEDIFutures.org and podcast host of Terrified Nation. She also works with the Center for Collaborative Democracy, which is home to the Grand Bargain Project as a way to unify Americans by getting unstuck on six big issues, all at the same time. She previously co-founded BridgeAlliance, Living Room Conversations, and the National Week of Conversation. You can learn more about her work on LinkedIn.




















President Donald Trump says Americans’ financial struggles matter “not even a little bit” as inflation rises, gas prices surge, and a controversial $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded compensation plan for political allies emerges.
Trump Says Americans’ Pain ‘Doesn’t Matter’ as $1.7B Aids His Allies
Perhaps the most effective ad in the 2024 campaign was “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Since that ad ran, the American people have learned that it is anything but true.
With gas prices having surged 28% in two months, inflation climbing to a three-year high of 3.8%, and the average family is spending an estimated $5,000 more this year than last due to rising costs across the board, a reporter asked Trump a simple question: To what extent are Americans’ financial situations motivating him to reach a deal to end the war in Iran?
Trump's answer was startling in its candor.
“Not even a little bit,” the President said. “The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran — they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.”
But perhaps the most clarifying lens through which to view those words is what emerged just days later: Trump was suing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $10 billion in damages over an IRS contractor’s leak of his tax returns but is now expected to drop that $10 billion lawsuit, not because justice has been served, but in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate his political allies.
The money would come not from any congressional appropriation but from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, a public fund funded by taxpayers that exists to pay legitimate court judgments against the federal government.
Under the proposed terms, a five-member commission with total authority to disburse that $1.7 billion would operate with no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making. Trump himself would retain the power to remove commission members without cause.
The beneficiaries? Among them: the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, some of whom pleaded guilty, and people Trump already pardoned upon returning to office, as well as allies who claim they were targets of “weaponization” of the legal system under former President Joe Biden. Entities associated with Trump himself are not explicitly barred from filing claims.
The contrast here is not subtle. When asked directly whether the financial pain of working Americans factors into his decision-making, the president answers “not even a little bit.”
Yet within the same week, a deal surfaces in which $1.7 billion in public funds could flow to Trump allies, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and potentially Trump-linked entities — all under a commission the president controls, with no transparency requirements.
While ordinary Americans are losing ground financially, the president himself is doing remarkably well — and the numbers are staggering.
According to Forbes, Trump's net worth jumped from roughly $2.3 billion when he returned to the White House in January 2025 to an estimated $6.3 billion by April 2026 — nearly tripling his fortune in little over a year.
A New York Times investigation found that he personally gained approximately $1.4 billion in 2025 alone, a single-year increase that approaches the combined net worth of every other U.S. president while in office throughout American history.
The primary engine of that growth has not been real estate, the business that built his brand over five decades, but rather cryptocurrency ventures, meme coins, and media deals, all industries he has simultaneously deregulated from the Oval Office.
The American people are not the constituency this president governs for. The data bears that out. Real wages are losing ground as energy costs surge. The personal savings rate has dropped to 4%. Small businesses have shed hundreds of thousands of jobs under the weight of tariffs. Gas sits at over $4 a gallon. And the president's answer to the question of whether your financial pain is even in his mind is: no.
There is, of course, an argument to be made that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a legitimate and serious national security priority that may justify some economic disruption.
But that argument is entirely separate from whether a president should care about the daily financial suffering of the people he was elected to serve. One can hold two things in mind at once. Trump apparently cannot — or will not.
We clearly have a portrait of a president whose conception of governance begins and ends with him and his loyalists. And when ordinary Americans ask if their struggles even register, they get the most honest answer this administration has offered: not even a little bit.
Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.