Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

House to Begin Work on HR 1, but Timetable Unknown

The Democrats' sweeping overhaul of elections and ethics law will begin moving through the House by the end of the month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised.

But the committee sequencing, floor timetable and debate terms for the bill all remain closely held if not undetermined. The vagueness is an indication of how the continued threat of a partial government shutdown is complicating the new House majority's desire to showcase the legislation as the top priority for its first months back in power.


"During this Black History Month, I am pleased we will be advancing H.R. 1," Pelosi said in a letter to her rank and file Monday night – noting that a central section of the measure, championed by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, is designed to bolster voting rights by setting federal standards for voter registration procedures, improving access to the polls and restoring the franchise nationwide for convicted felons.

But Pelosi offered no additional details. And, to date, there has been one hearing on the bill, in the Judiciary Committee, with another one scheduled later this week in the Oversight and Reform Committee.

Eight other panels claim some jurisdiction over aspects of the measure, which also would revamp executive branch ethics rules, boost campaign finance disclosures, make Election Day a federal holiday and turn all congressional redistricting over to non-partisan players. Some of them will want to have hearings, as well, and then in theory each would have the authority to debate and amend parts of the package in a committee drafting session, or markup.

If those customary procedures are applied – and the new Democratic leadership has promised a restoration of such "regular order" – it's tough to imagine the measure being readied for a debate by the full House before March. It is virtually guaranteed to pass intact at that point (227 Democrats are cosponsors) before facing a dead-on-arrival promise in the Republican Senate.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

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?

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less