Sensible gun laws, a safer environment, campaign finance reform, affordable access to health care, and many other progressive priorities are supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. But they aren't the law of the land. That isn't an accident. Republicans know they don't enjoy popular support. So, keeping certain people from voting is at the heart of their election strategy. We have to fight voter suppression, but we can't just play defense anymore. iVote is going on offense to fight to expand access to voting to ensure more people vote... because if everyone voted our democracy would finally reflect the will of all its people.
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

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
Recommended
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

Trump’s 10-to-1 rule aims to cut red tape, but fewer regulations can mean weaker food safety, Head Start services, and checks on presidential power.
Wu Xiaoling/Xinhua via Getty Images
Trump’s 10-to-1 Rule Gives the Presidency Too Much Power
Oct 21, 2026
We only think about the plumbing in our homes when something goes wrong. The same is true for government bureaucracy. Rules, procedures, and bureaucrats operate largely out of sight, making sure food is safe, Social Security checks arrive, workplaces are safe, and children with disabilities receive the services promised to them by law. Yes, there is plenty of red tape in government, just as an old house can accumulate pipes that no longer serve much purpose. But ripping out pipes simply because there are too many of them is not much of a plumbing strategy. Yet the Trump administration has made the number of federal regulations it eliminates a measure of success. That raises a more important question: When does cutting bureaucracy stop making government more efficient and start making it less capable?
1. The Case for Cutting Red Tape
Critics, including Trump, have a point when they say Washington has too many regulations. Rules, like weeds, accumulate over time. With each passing year, some become outdated, others duplicate existing requirements, and for still others, costs start to exceed benefits they once provided. Businesses, state and local governments, and ordinary citizens can spend an enormous amount of time trying to comply with them.
Trump claims that eliminating these rules is a major goal of the administration. Trump's 10-to-1 policy requires federal agencies to eliminate at least ten regulations for every new one they issue. The administration boasts it has already surpassed that goal. This is evidence, according to Trump, that the government is becoming more efficient.
Few would argue with getting rid of rules that no longer serve a useful purpose. Indeed, some should have disappeared years ago. But fewer rules don't automatically mean better government. Food safety rules, environmental regulations, and protections for workers exist because there were things government needed to protect. Getting rid of the rule doesn't get rid of the problem it was intended to address.
2. Rules Make Government Work
Consider Head Start. The program provides important services to children with disabilities. Federal rules govern how children are screened, how they are referred for additional help, how parents are involved, and how Head Start works with other agencies. These may sound like bureaucratic details. But they are also how good intentions get translated into actual services for a child.
Now Trump wants to get rid of many of these requirements, and he frames it as giving local programs more freedom. On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Why should Washington tell every Head Start program exactly how to do its job? The problem is what happens next. Without common requirements, services that children receive in one community may be radically different from those available in another. A right isn't worth very much if whether you receive it depends on your ZIP code.
Environmental regulations present a similar problem. Business owners have complained about their cost for decades, and some of those complaints are justified. But these rules weren't created to make things more expensive for businesses. They were intended to keep pollution out of the air and water. Common sense dictates getting rid of regulations that don't work. But eliminating the rule doesn't eliminate the pollution that gave rise to it in the first place.
Food safety provides another example. This summer, thousands of people became sick in a Cyclospora outbreak linked to Mexican iceberg lettuce. Hundreds were hospitalized, and two people died. We can't say that deep cuts at the FDA caused the outbreak. But those cuts have led FDA staffing to fall and foreign food inspections have declined. Given how much of our food comes from outside the United States, that's something worth worrying about.
Most of us don't think much about food inspectors until thousands of people get sick. Then suddenly the bureaucrats don't seem quite so unnecessary.
3. A Weaker Bureaucracy Can Mean a Stronger President
Something else is going on here. Trump isn't simply getting rid of regulations; he is bringing more of the federal government under his control in the process. White House oversight has been extended to independent agencies, while civil service rules have been changed for some federal workers involved in policymaking. The administration says this makes bureaucrats more accountable to an elected president and hence, indirectly, the people. It also gives the president more control over the workforce who carry out the law.
The Framers would have understood the problem. They distrusted concentrated power, no matter who exercised it. That is why the Constitution divides power among Congress, the president, and the courts and then gives each branch ways to check the others' overreach. Madison wrote about this in Federalist 47. Putting legislative, executive, and judicial power in the same hands, he said, was the “very definition of tyranny.”
This can make American government maddeningly inefficient. That's not an accident. The Framers were willing to sacrifice some efficiency to make it harder for one person or institution to dominate the government. If the Framers lived today, they might say the system's inefficiency was a feature, not a bug.
Trump is attempting to move us in the other direction. Giving a president more control over federal agencies and career officials makes it easier to carry out his agenda. For Trump's supporters, that's part of the appeal. They elected him to change Washington and don't want unelected bureaucrats getting in his way.
But there is a price. A president who faces fewer restraints has more freedom to act on his own. That may work fine when you agree with the person in the White House. It looks rather different when you don't. Fewer checks and balances also mean fewer opportunities to catch mistakes before they become policy.
This is where deregulation becomes about something larger than red tape. Concentrating power in the presidency doesn't by itself make a government authoritarian. But it removes some of the obstacles that make authoritarian government harder. And once presidential power expands, it rarely goes back to what it was before. That is how the threat of authoritarianism grows.
Robert Cropf is a professor emeritus of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















