Winning just nine more House seats than Democrats in the 2022 midterms means the Republican caucus has very little room for error.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.
Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa
Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?
Oct 22, 2026
Issue Introduction
Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.
During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.
The History of Government-Owned and -Assisted Grocery Stores
Several organizations and local governments have established grocery stores as a means of serving their communities. These efforts have had varying degrees of success, providing historical evidence of both benefits and difficulties of running such establishments.
Kansas State University’s Rural Grocery Initiative (RGI) is a research and community development program focused on sustaining grocery stores in rural communities. While RGI is not a government program, it uses state resources to support independent and locally-owned stores by providing management training, grant assistance, and other operational resources. RGI has provided assistance to several successful markets, such as St. Paul Market in rural southeastern Kansas. Baldwin Market in Baldwin, Florida was a city-run grocery store opened after the town’s only privately owned grocery store closed. Though it enjoyed initial success, it closed in 2024 because it lost more customers to other towns’ dollar stores and big-box grocers than it could recoup from sales revenue.
Arguments in Opposition: Industry and Political Resistance
Government-run grocery store initiatives face significant opposition from political figures and members of the grocery industry. Both groups’ arguments are based on economic evidence arguing that alternate methods of price easing will be less harmful and more effective in the long run. Owners of New York City’s bodegas and small markets share concerns that the initiative will let government stores undercut their businesses by offering prices that can’t be matched without compromising profitability. This is because their stores operate on tight margins and charge prices which are already lower than those of major grocery retailers. New York City members of the National Supermarket Association also fear that undercutting local markets will threaten the jobs of New Yorkers employed at those establishments. Their doubts are shared by the city council members voting on the funding allocation required to establish the stores.
Mamdani’s use of city-run grocery stores as a key tenet of his political agenda has drawn skepticism from strategists and policymakers who question whether Mamdani and his team understand the initiative’s true financial cost. They observe that the capital required to furnish the stores with proper supply chains and staffing might deter investment in private businesses and grow costlier over time as government administration of these functions makes day-to-day management more inefficient. These challenges lead them to argue that government power would be more effectively invested in subsidies or tax breaks that encourage stores to lower prices. This type of intervention has proven successful through its use in the Food Retail Expansion to Support Health (FRESH) program, which provides subsidies to grocers opening stores in food deserts. Supplementing existing initiatives would allow them to start faster and reach a greater number of city residents.
Arguments in Favor: Lowering Prices and Addressing Food Insecurity
Support for government-run grocery stores hinges on their ability to offer groceries at a lower price than traditional retailers. This is because the government does not have an interest in generating profit, and prices can be set to solely cover operating costs. Such practices are most typically observed in commissaries, government-run stores located on military bases. While only available to military affiliates, commissary stores ease financial strain on military members and families by offering necessities at a lower price. The Defense Commissary Agency (DCA)’s cost-plus model sets prices with a 5% surcharge to cover operating costs and lets shoppers pay 25-30% less at commissaries than they would at retail stores. Proponents of municipal grocery stores use this example to show that such savings can be achieved in civilian settings.
Government-run stores also draw support for their role in addressing food deserts, geographic regions lacking access to grocers and healthy food. More than two dozen New York City neighborhoods are considered food deserts and rely on bodegas as a major food source, providing residents with highly-processed food items as opposed to fresh produce and ingredients. This disparity is reinforced along lines of income. The ratio of bodegas to supermarkets in historically low-income neighborhoods–such as Brooklyn’s Sunset Park and Bedford-Stuyvesant–is 57:1, while high-income neighborhoods like Manhattan’s Upper West Side have a ratio as low as 3:1. City-operated grocery stores could diversify grocery options in low-income neighborhoods with limited supermarket access, offering fresh foods not often available at local stores.
Looking Forward
Mamdani must secure funding from the city council to move forward on developing the grocery stores. The council faces an imminent July 1 deadline to ratify its budget for the 2027 fiscal year, which currently includes the $70 million needed to cover all five store locations. If funding is acquired, development will begin at the two predetermined locations, La Marqueta in Manhattan and The Peninsula in the Bronx, as sites are selected for the stores in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. The Peninsula location is expected to be the first to open in 2027.
Conclusion
Mayor Mamdani’s proposal to provide New York City with five government-owned grocery stores is designed to provide healthier, more nutritious options to communities without traditional grocery retailers. While similar initiatives have been carried out in the past to varying degrees of success, providing consumers with lower prices and mitigating the negative effects of food deserts, worries persist about the government’s ability to manage the stores efficiently and the effects said stores might have on small businesses that cannot set competitive prices. The proposal has also drawn questions about whether supplementing existing nutrition programs would be more effective at reaching a greater number of New Yorkers. Debates over this program will likely continue until the July council meeting that decides whether it will receive funding.
Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach? was originally published by The Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Oct 21, 2026
The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.
However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.
Almost a century ago our country rejected both socialism, the complete government control of the economy, and unregulated, survival-of-the-fittest capitalism. Instead, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt navigated a middle path between the two, the New Deal. We stayed with capitalism, with the free market, but Roosevelt’s administration implemented a broad range of financial and corporate regulations to ensure our economy worked for more Americans. Using the power of government to moderate capitalism was a fulfillment of the most basic promise of our Constitution, the promise of equality of opportunity.
Moderated capitalism had broad support throughout society, and even support from the Republican Party. While they certainly saw the mix differently, Republicans and Democrats agreed that the government should both nurture the free market and make sure it served the whole of our country.
And moderated capitalism worked. It allowed us to tap into the immense talent and ambition of every part of our population. Capitalism is more efficient if there is one set of rules; a level playing field allows everyone to compete equally, creating the greatest value for society. Making sure more people shared in that value through reforms like the 40-hour workweek, overtime pay, and unionization put money in people’s pockets and helped create the engine of our massive consumer economy.
Our country has backed away from its commitment to moderated capitalism. In part, this happened because of the ebb and flow of history. Our free-market model had won, producing far greater wealth and personal freedom than socialism. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, we stopped paying as much attention.
However, most of the blame rests with the two major parties. Both began to step back from, and actively undermine, the compromise of moderated capitalism. The true believers in unfettered capitalism still had a home in the right wing of the Republican Party. They claimed the victory over socialism as their own and argued our economy had matured and needed less regulation. At every opportunity they cast government as inherently incompetent and untrustworthy. Part of the Democratic Party also bought into the idea of “triumphant capitalism,” happily going along with deregulating our economy
Page 1 of 2
while collecting ever larger donations from corporate interests. The Republican Party slowly chipped away at the protections of moderated capitalism, and the Democrats either helped with the dismantling, or stood by and did nothing.
As a result, in ways large and small, our country has stepped back from moderated capitalism. We’ve pulled away from using the powers of government to ensure everyone can participate in our economy. We’ve allowed our bridges and roads to slip into disrepair. We’ve retreated from ensuring every student has access to a quality education. We’ve allowed unions to be undermined. We’ve weakened the parts of government that protect us from products that harm us or our environment. We have rolled back financial regulations and consciously chosen not to extend regulation as Wall Street created new financial products, or as new technologies like the Internet were transforming our society. In many different ways, we’ve backed away from our commitment to providing a level playing field.
The return of unregulated—even predatory—capitalism has also led to a renewed interest in socialism, in the government takeover of our economy. But the answer still isn’t to abandon the free market—it’s to go back to moderating it. We need to again make sure that every American has the ability and the opportunity to participate in our economic system. We need to get back to one set of financial, investing, and insurance rules. We need to get back to an updated New Deal, to again make our economy work for all Americans.
Blake Ashby is author of Socialism and the Democratic Party: The Case for a Return to Moderated Capitalism, President of the Ferguson Democratic Township, and a political consultant working with Democratic candidates.
Keep ReadingShow less
Building Community Power from Rocinha to Chicago's South and West Sides
Oct 21, 2026
BRAZIL -In Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro’s largest favela, democracy is not a distant abstraction — it is lived, built, and defended daily. On Election Day, October 4, as expected on Sunday’s second-round runoff, the steep alleys will fill with voters waiting to cast electronic ballots for clean water, reliable electricity, freedom from gunfire—and dignity itself.
During my own visit, walking through those same labyrinthine, concrete corridors, this fiercely self-reliant spirit was impossible to miss. Past the towering rows of brick homes and along steep, winding roads with bustling motorbike taxis, you immediately feel the pulse of a self-contained city that refuses to be defined by its challenges. Seeing firsthand the vibrant local markets, community-led initiatives, and sheer momentum of daily life makes it clear that the ballot box is just one of many tools the people of Rocinha use to claim their space and shape their own future.
Scenes from Favela Rocinha, Brazil - (R-L) Rows of brick homes, Hugo Balta on a motorcycle taxi, and steep, winding roadsHugo Balta
International media often flatten this into a narrative of despair. As my guide Max, who preferred not to give his last name, points out, "From the outside...the TV wants to show bad things about the favela because that's what gives the views. But when you come right here inside... you can see with your eyes the reality." Indeed, inside Rocinha, the reality is far more sophisticated: residents are not waiting for democracy to arrive; they are constructing it themselves. As Max emphasizes, "We are happy people... we are people who help one another."
This relentless struggle resonates deeply with marginalized communities in the United States, finding its sharpest mirror on Chicago's South and West Sides, where I live. In both Rocinha and Chicago’s historic Black and Latino neighborhoods, voters are routinely treated by major political parties as monolithic blocs. They court them aggressively every few years with empty promises, only to systematically forget them once the ballots are counted. This cycle of seasonal exploitation breeds a deep, justifiable apathy—a sentiment felt acutely across the South and West sides as the fast-approaching midterms loom just weeks away.
As a Chicago Votes grassroots organizer observed in a City Bureau report regarding this exact cycle: "We build up incredible amounts of community power before each election through base-building, but after every election, we drop it – all of it. And then we have to start from scratch... What would it look like to actually build political power within our neighborhoods?"
Yet, grassroots organizers in both cities refuse to succumb to cynicism. To break this pattern, Rocinha’s community newspaper, Fala Roça, actively profiles young, Black, favela-born candidates and maintains a local civic directory to transform an ignored voting base into an organized political force. This work directly mirrors the hyper-local voter guides and grassroots infrastructure built by Black and Latino organizers on Chicago's South and West sides. Activists in both hemispheres recognize that true political literacy cannot be top-down; it must be community-led to effectively resist voter suppression, counter institutional neglect, and turn localized frustration into structural power.
The shared battlefront extends heavily into the digital landscape. Research by Data Favela shows that nearly 9 in 10 favela residents have fallen victim to fake news, which spreads rapidly through encrypted apps with immediate consequences for local safety and elections. In Rocinha, youth collectives have stepped in as fact-checkers of last resort. This dynamic is instantly recognizable to immigrant and minority communities across the U.S., particularly in Chicago, where targeted Spanish-language and localized disinformation campaigns weaponize hyper-local anxieties in spaces that mainstream, corporate fact-checking completely fails to reach.
Organizing across cultural lines remains critical to building a united front against these tactics. As Artemio Arreola, an organizer with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), reflected in the Chicago Tribune, true solidarity comes from helping communities "see that our struggles are connected."
Perhaps the most profound connection lies in how both communities define infrastructure. Civic engagement in Rocinha is a continuous, monthly practice led by collectives like Rocinha Sem Fronteiras. When the state tried to impose a flashy, tourist-centric cable car project that would have displaced hundreds of local families, residents organized, held assemblies, and successfully demanded investments in basic water and sanitation instead. This victory echoes the decades-long environmental justice battles fought on Chicago's South and West sides. For generations, these neighborhoods have mobilized against the state and powerful corporations to block toxic industrial zoning, predatory logistical hubs, or destructive highway projects that threaten to displace families and pollute the air.
Highlighting this shifting battlefront against environmental neglect, Edith Tovar of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) noted in a South Side Weekly profile that "there's definitely been a move of people realizing and noticing how the pollution has shifted from coal ash to diesel."
In both Rio and Chicago, the core demand remains identical: low-income communities are forcing authorities to prioritize human dignity—housing, clean air, and clean water—over top-down, profit-driven development. Ballot-box interventions remain essential to this self-determination. For local residents, equal representation is fundamental to their civic identity. As Max frames it: "I believe democracy, it's you choose who you want, and it doesn't matter if you live in the city, if you live in the favela, you can choose [who] you prefer." The lesson binding Rocinha to Chicago is clear: when the state neglects or dismisses a community, the answer is relentless, localized organization. Through self-mapping, hyper-local truth-telling, and community assemblies, these neighborhoods are redefining democracy as a daily practice rather than a periodic event. Their shared message is a universal demand for full citizenship: a ballot is not just a vote—it is an organized assertion of power from the ground up.
Hugo Balta traveled through Brazil, reporting on how the country's efforts to strengthen democracy, expand civic participation, and address environmental challenges may hold valuable insights for the United States.
Balta is executive editor of The Fulcrum, publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He is an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.
Guido Mieth/Getty Images
The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System
Oct 21, 2026
It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.
Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.
Meanwhile, the wealthiest 10% of households own roughly 87% of directly and indirectly held corporate equities and mutual-fund shares, as well as approximately two-thirds of total household wealth. The bottom half owns only a small single-digit percentage. Wealth derived from appreciating assets compounds faster—and is frequently taxed more favorably—than wages.
Hard work still matters, but it is no longer enough. Unless people acquire appreciating, income-producing assets early in life, they may remain financially insecure regardless of how steadily they work. Artificial intelligence, automation, age discrimination and periodic mass layoffs are likely to deepen that insecurity.
Social Security cannot solve the problem. Declining birth rates mean fewer workers supporting more retirees. Under current projections, the retirement trust fund will become unable to pay scheduled benefits during the 2030s, potentially requiring cuts of more than 20% unless Congress acts.
America therefore confronts three related problems: the transition from labor-generated prosperity to asset-generated wealth; falling birth rates partly driven by financial insecurity; and a retirement system approaching a funding crisis. A majority excluded from the asset economy will increasingly resent those who benefit from it, intensifying political polarization and making radical redistribution appear attractive.
Higher taxes and larger transfer programs do not address the underlying dynamic. Nor would Universal Basic Income. UBI would require enormous recurring expenditures while creating no corresponding asset. It treats insufficient income as the problem when the deeper problem is unequal ownership of the capital that generates wealth.
If America has become an asset-based economy, the logical response is to make asset ownership universal.
An American Birthright Account
The recently created “Trump Accounts” point in the right direction by providing eligible children with a $1,000 investment account to which families, employers, and others may contribute. But $1,000 invested at 7% annually would grow to only about $15,000 after 40 years. A meaningful solution must be much larger.
Suppose every American child received an individually owned Birthright Account at birth, containing $35,000 invested in a diversified portfolio of American stocks and bonds. Assuming a 7% nominal annual return, 2.5% inflation, and low management fees, that account could grow over 50 years to approximately $300,000 in today’s purchasing power—or about $1 million in 2076 dollars.
The principal could not normally be withdrawn before age 50, and gains would be tax-free once the beneficiary reached that age. Parents, relatives, friends and employers could make additional tax-advantaged contributions. Even $50 a month could add approximately $79,000 in today’s purchasing power after 50 years.
With roughly 3.6 million births annually, the initial federal investment would be about $126 billion per year, plus modest administration and brokerage costs. This is substantial, but it should not be viewed like Medicaid or another consumption expense. It would be an annual asset purchase: a national investment held in private accounts for American citizens.
The money would begin working immediately. A permanent annual flow of $126 billion into American securities would provide patient capital to businesses, increase demand for Treasury and corporate bonds, and modestly reduce market volatility. During recessions, the program would continue buying, allowing accounts to acquire more shares at depressed prices.
Over several decades, the accounts could accumulate trillions of dollars. That capital would belong not to foreign governments, large institutions or a small affluent minority, but to ordinary Americans. After 30 years, the program could hold nearly $12 trillion in nominal assets, making its beneficiaries one of the largest ownership constituencies in corporate America.
Paying for It
The program should not be financed by printing money or simply adding to the national debt. Instead, several dedicated sources could be combined.
First, a U.S. sovereign wealth fund could receive income from federal mineral, oil and gas rights, spectrum auctions, government equity holdings, surplus federal property and federal loan portfolios.
Second, a 0.01% levy on secondary-market purchases of stocks, bonds, exchange-traded funds and selected derivatives could generate an estimated 30–35 billion annually. It would add only 50 cents to a $5,000 ETF purchase.
Third, an “AI productivity dividend” could dedicate part of the corporate tax revenue arising from highly automated, exceptionally profitable businesses to the citizens whose employment prospects automation may weaken.
Fourth, federal research grants could sometimes include small public equity stakes in recipient companies, producing revenue when successful firms go public. Carefully verified reductions in waste, fraud and administrative costs could provide a smaller supplementary share.
The accounts would require strong statutory protection against political raids, cancellation or diversion. Assets should remain individually owned and professionally managed, with strict custody safeguards. Limited borrowing against a minority of the account might be permitted for a first home or a privately financed business, but the central purpose—creating long-term financial security—must be protected.
Giving Every American a Stake
Birthright Accounts would not eliminate inequality. Affluent parents would still provide their children with greater advantages. The proposal would instead close the enormous gap between inheriting assets and beginning adult life with nothing.
Every American would become an investor at birth and would eventually own a share of the companies whose productivity generates national wealth. That ownership could encourage financial education, entrepreneurship and public support for policies that sustain long-term economic growth. It could also reduce future dependence on Social Security, housing assistance and other transfers.
Most importantly, the proposal addresses economic inequality at its source. Rather than repeatedly redistributing income after wealth has been created, it distributes ownership of the assets that create wealth in the first place.
The economy’s operating system has changed. A policy designed for an age when wages reliably produced security can no longer meet the needs of an economy in which capital appreciation increasingly determines who prospers.
The choice is ultimately straightforward: America can leave future generations an ownership stake in the nation’s productive wealth—or leave them only an increasingly unpayable share of its debt.
Paul Maglione is an American entrepreneur and writer currently living in Europe. He writes mostly about politics, society, and entertainment.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















