Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tax returns could be thorny transparency issue for Democratic contenders

Democrats have spent three years castigating Donald Trump for not allowing the public to peruse his tax returns in the name of transparency and good governance, but the party's presidential candidates have so far been slow to release their filings.

In fact, just two have disclosed anything recent. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York publicly released her forms for 2018 on Wednesday, a relatively uncomplicated filing showing $214,000 in adjusted gross income – her $167,634 in congressional salary augmented by a $50,000 payment for her campaign autobiography. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has posted all her returns since 2008 on her campaign website, although she hasn't filed for last year.


"The Democratic candidates now find themselves in a potentially challenging spot. They face pressure to release years' worth their returns, to emphasize to energized primary voters how different they are from Trump and how they reject his approach to government service," the Washington Post wrote in detailing how the 2020 field is handling the matter so far. "At the same time, tax returns can sometimes include embarrassing information or disclose data at odds with a candidate's political self-portrait – such as a lofty income that might not sit well with Americans living paycheck to paycheck."

Three other senators – Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota – and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas have promised to release returns but have not committed to a timetable or a depth of disclosure.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey has given some access to his filings before past elections but has not made clear what he will do this time. And Joe Biden, who is expected to announce his decision within a month, has released tax returns from 1998 through 2015, his penultimate year as vice president.


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