As you all know, I went to No Kings over the weekend in Saint Paul!
Had to preserve the shot of the Capitol without outing my friends.
Yes, I wear the boots everywhere. All year.
We marched from Harriet to the Capital and let me tell you, I was FREEEEEEZING. I’m a freeze baby as it is, but the wind was biting in addition to the cooler temps. Still worth it.
You guys had pondered what the speeches would sound like, and I listened carefully for rhetoric that would be considered divisive instead of unifying. To be honest, I didn’t hear any. Any ill will was directed specifically at Trump, not at the people who voted for him.
Some of the highlights:
- Walz’s speech: “The President said it’s a bunch of radicals. You’re damn right we’ve been radicalized. Radicalized by compassion, radicalized by decency, radicalize d by due process, radicalized by democracy”.
- A Native American healer sang a never-released healing song. It was incredibly moving not just because of her incredibly song, but because when she greeted the crowd in Ojibwe many of us knew how to greet her back. Boozhoo!
- The freaking BOSS gave an incredible speech and put on a great performance. I forget the exact quote, but he said something to the effect of “They picked the wrong city to try and bully when they chose Minneapolis”.
- Bernie Sander who gets his own special section starting now.
We almost missed Bernie. It was past 3pm, there was no service for me to check in with my husband and tell him we’d be later than expected and we were all freezing. As we were walking out one of my friends commented “Wouldn’t it be hilarious if we hear them announce Bernie to the stage as we are leaving” and less than a minute later exactly that happened. We all turned tail without even a word and booked it like wild women back to a vantage point to see him speak.
I wanted to write out all my favorite topics, but I quickly realized it was all my favorite. Here’s a video of the speech:
And the full text with my favorite portions bolded:
Thank you, Minnesota.
And let me thank Indivisible, MoveOn, 50501 and all of the organizations who have made this event possible.
And thank you to the millions of Americans, from our smallest towns to our largest cities, in every state in our country, who are gathering today at thousands of rallies.
It is absolutely appropriate that we hold a major “No Kings Rally” right here in the St. Paul/Minneapolis area.
When historians write about this dangerous moment in American history, when they write about courage and sacrifice, the people of Minnesota will deserve a special chapter for themselves.
In the face of the unprecedented occupation of this city by ICE, Trump’s domestic army, this community stood up and, with extraordinary solidarity, fought back. Minnesota showed the American people and the world what democracy is about, what grassroots activism is about, and what standing up for the American ideals of freedom and justice is about.
And I want to thank my colleagues, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, for their leadership in the Senate on this issue.
And today, we remember and honor the two brave Americans, Renee Good and Alex Pretti – who lost their lives in the struggle — and we promise their family and friends that these two heroes will not have died in vain. Their sacrifice has inspired, and will continue to inspire, the American people in the never-ending fight for justice.
As all of you know, we are living in an unprecedented and dangerous moment in American history. In many ways the future of our country and the entire world is hanging in the balance – and the actions that we take now will determine what that future looks like.
The choices that we face are clear. In the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and at a time of massive breakthroughs in technology, we now have the opportunity to create a nation in which ALL people can enjoy a dignified standard of living, where we wipe out bigotry and hatred, and where all of us can live in peace and participate in a vibrant democracy. Where the foundation of our nation is built on love, compassion, human solidarity and an understanding, as former Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone said, that we all do better when we all do better. That is one vision for the future — a vision that the vast majority of Americans share.
But there is another vision out there as well – a darker vision. It is a vision which says that we must give up on democracy, that we are too stupid and inept to govern ourselves, and that we must put more and more power into the hands of one man. It is a vision that says we should accept an economy in which a handful of Oligarchs have unbelievable wealth, while the vast majority struggle to put food on the table. It is a vision that says that the only thing that matters in life is the accumulation of money and power – and that it is okay if we lie, cheat and steal to achieve those goals. It is a vision which says that we must hate each other because of where we were born, the language we speak, the color of our skin, our religion or our sexual orientation. It is a vision that foments hatred and hatred. Division, division and division.
It is an Orwellian vision which says that we must live in a constant state of fear, that we must always have an enemy and that we must always be at war. It is a vision which says that we have unlimited amounts of money for bombs and guns and for killing, but never enough money to feed our children, provide affordable housing or enable our parents to retire with dignity.
Today, here in Minnesota, in Vermont and in every state in the country we say loudly and proudly that as Americans we will never forsake our heritage. We will never accept authoritarianism, we will never accept oligarchy, and we will never accept a president who is a pathological liar, a kleptocrat, and a narcissist who is undermining the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law every day.
We will never accept government policy that gives massive tax breaks to the billionaires, throws 15 million Americans off the healthcare they have, breaks unions, denies women the right to control their own bodies, and is pushing the planet closer and closer to a climate crisis.
In the last year, I must confess, I have been thinking a lot about American history: about the men and women in 1776 who, with unbelievable courage, announced to the world that they would no longer be ruled by the king of England, who had absolute power over their lives. These patriots demanded freedom, and they fought a bloody revolutionary war against the most powerful military in the world to achieve that freedom. And they won.
And after their military victory, they established the first democratic form of government in modern history. In 1789, they said loudly and boldly to the entire world: here in America we don’t want kings.
And let’s never forget the extraordinary words they left us: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And today, in 2026, our message is exactly the same: No more kings. We will not allow this country to descend into authoritarianism or oligarchy. In America, We the People will rule.
But let’s be clear: This moment is not just about one man’s greed, one man’s corruption or one man’s contempt for our Constitution. This is about a handful of the wealthiest people on Earth, who, in their insatiable greed, have taken over our economy, have taken over our political system, have taken over our media in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the working families of our country.
Never before in American history have so few had so much wealth and power.
Never before in American history has there been such extreme levels of income and wealth inequality, with the top 1% now owning more wealth than the bottom 93%.
Never before in American history have we seen the super-rich expand their wealth so rapidly. Last year alone, after receiving the largest tax break in history, 938 billionaires in America became $1.5 trillion richer. Trump, himself, became over a billion dollars richer.
Never before in American history have we seen a ruling class, within a corrupt campaign finance system, spend so much money to buy politicians. In the coming mid-term elections, the billionaires will spend many, many hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure that government continues to work for them, and not working families.
Meanwhile, while the richest people become much richer, 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to pay their rent and mortgage, struggling to pay for child care and education, and struggling to put a few bucks aside for a decent retirement. Tens of thousands of Americans die unnecessarily every year because they can’t afford to go to a doctor.
And, unless we change how our economy works, our younger generation, for the first time in modern history, will have a lower standard of living than their parents.
So today, we not only say NO to Trump’s authoritarianism, we say NO to Mr. Musk, Mr. Bezos, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mr. Ellison and all the other multibillionaires. You cannot have it all. We WILL create an economy that works for ALL Americans, not just the 1%.
My friends. It’s not just the authoritarianism of the Trump administration that we must combat.
It’s not just the Oligarchs and their insatiable greed that we must combat.
Now, as the news of today reminds us, we have got to stop the out-of-control militarism of the Trump administration – here at home, in cities like Minneapolis-St. Paul – and abroad.
Let’s be honest. The American people were lied to about the war in Vietnam. We were lied to about the war in Iraq. And we are being lied to today about the war in Iran. This war must end immediately.
In the last election Donald Trump pointed out, correctly, the huge amounts of money that had been wasted in wars that should have been spent rebuilding America. He campaigned as a “peace candidate,” and he promised no more “forever wars.” Well, he lied.
One month ago Trump and his partner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, started a war with Iran. This war is unconstitutional. Trump did not seek or receive authorization from Congress. This war is in violation of international law. One sovereign nation cannot simply go about attacking another sovereign nation for any reason it chooses.
Since this war began 13 American soldiers have been killed and hundreds have been wounded — including another 12 yesterday. In Iran, nearly 2,000 civilians have been killed and many more wounded, and 498 schools have been attacked by American and Israeli missiles.
In Lebanon, more than 1,000 people are dead and more than one million Lebanese people — 15% of their population — have been displaced from their homes. In Israel, 20 people have been killed and over 5,000 have been wounded.
In the West Bank, Israeli vigilantes are burning down homes and killing Palestinians.
At a time when gas prices are soaring, when many Americans cannot afford the basic necessities of life, it is estimated that this war has already cost us a trillion dollars.
At a time when the American people are politically divided, there is one issue that is bringing us together. Conservatives, moderates and progressives are speaking out in unison: NO MORE WAR.
And as a U.S. Senator, I want to say a few words to you about what I intend to do about that.
First, we’ve got to make sure that Congress does not send another $200 billion to fight this war. That supplemental appropriation for the war in Iran must be defeated.
Secondly, I will be forcing a vote on legislation to block the sale of nearly a billion dollars in weapons to the Israeli military for bombs and bulldozers.
A nation that has committed genocide in Gaza does not need more military support from American taxpayers.
We must block the bombs and block the bulldozers.
My fellow Americans: We are all proud to live in a country which, throughout our history, has inspired people around the world to struggle for freedom, democracy and justice. And we understand that when we stand together, and don’t let demagogues divide us up, we can continue to inspire the world to believe in a brighter future.
Yes, we can create a vibrant democracy by ending Citizens United and not allowing billionaires to buy elections.
Yes, we can create an economy that works for every man, woman and child in our country and not just a handful of billionaires.
Yes, we can make certain that the revolutionary technologies of artificial intelligence and robotics are used to improve life for all of us, not just the wealthy owners of that technology.
Yes, we join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a human right.
Yes, instead of spending a trillion dollars a year on the military, we can wipe out homelessness and build millions of units of low-income and affordable housing.
Yes, in the richest country on Earth, we can have the best public educational system in the world, with tuition-free schooling, from child care through higher education.
Yes, we can expand Social Security and radically improve our pension system so that every senior in this country can retire with dignity.
Yes, we can raise the minimum wage to a living wage and guarantee every worker the right to join a union.
Yes, we can guarantee that every woman in this country has the right to control her own body.
Yes, at a time when billionaires are paying an effective tax rate lower than a truck driver or nurse, we can make certain that the top 1% and large profitable corporations start paying their fair share in taxes.
My fellow Americans: The establishment, including the corporate media and many of my colleagues in Congress, want you to believe that you are powerless. They want you to believe that you cannot change the status quo. But that’s a lie.
Throughout the history of our country, when Americans have stood up and fought for justice, they have prevailed.
The founders did it when they stood up to King George.
The abolitionists did it when they ended slavery.
The working class did it when they stood up to their bosses and formed unions.
The suffragettes did it when they demanded that women have the right to vote.
The LGBT community did it when they demanded basic human rights.
Time and time again, in difficult moments in American history, our people stood up, fought back and won.
They did it then. We can do it now.
Today, March 28, 2026, millions of Americans are out on the streets demanding freedom, democracy and justice. But we must make certain: Today is not the end of our struggle. It is just the beginning.
Together, when we stand united, we will create the kind of nation that you and I know we can become.
Happy Sunday, ya’ll!
Oh, dear. Is it even reasonable to say that your objection is only to Trump without at least /implying/ that anybody who voted for him, or approves of his actions now, is beneath contempt and should be killed?
Tell me, did the “King” send his dragoons into your peaceful (thank goodness and AFAIK) assembly to assault and murder as many as possible? Was anyone jailed without trail? What a weak king he must be. Some kings are ruthless, so what is the antonym, ruth?
I looked at Bernie’s speech, tl;dr, and I looked at what Walz said, all sheer and utter nonsense, a broad and repetitive emotional appeal based on absolutely nothing I recognize as reality.
Bernie is a socialist. Wellstone was a liberal. There is a difference, seen when looking at Wellstone’s speech, when he said, “we all do better when we all do better.” NOTICE “DO better.” Not “take it away from those who earned it and give it to someone who didn’t.” It’s why socialism fails every time it’s tried. Compassionate help to those who NO FAULT OF their own” have fallen on hard times, and then only until they are “back on their feet.” You’ve commented before about the “welfare cliff” where those on welfare cannot find a job that pays what welfare does, and if they DO take a job they lose the welfare that would let them survive. It’s messed up.
But nowhere is the madness more apparent than this litany of defense of terrorists, murderers, rapists and Iranian belligerents, and men in women’s spaces. Law and order is more than a TV show, it is a prerequisite for civilization to survive. Even kings gave us that.
This is incredibly hyperbolic speech, I’m actually surprised at you. That would be like saying every NFL fan is liable when their favorite player beats up his girlfriend. I do not, have not, and will not ever fault someone for voting for Trump. If you still vehemently support him, I honestly have questions. If you voted for him, you didn’t get what you voted for. How can I fault someone who voted for “no new wars” except if they’re now perfectly happy to see us in Iran?
How do you, personally, propose we all do better? You can rail against welfare, but what about education? Why should someone need to pay $125,000 to get a bachelor’s degree from a Public College? Their monthly payment for a 10-year payment plan would be $1,412.36/month. $400 more than the mortgage was for my starter home less than a decade ago, with PMI and escrow included. What about programs like C2C that engage at risk youth and help them do better? Those cost money. What about childcare? I paid $2,000/month for an IN-HOME daycare in Savage. Centers average $1700/mo. Per child.
Tell me where exactly is anyone defending these people, apart from a Trans Woman’s right to use the female facility? Believing all people are people regardless of how they got here isn’t defending murderers or rapists. Would you believe all white people are evil because of all the white serial killers? The white rapists? If no, why do you continue to further the narrative that all black and brown people are the same because of their worst members?
Not a single person I have EVER seen even in the darkest corners of Reddit has said “Iran is really onto something with this whole idea of brutality!”. Saying “It isn’t our job to decide who gets to lead a foreign country” is different than saying “Yay extreme Islam!”. Please tell me why you support the war?
FAR more women are getting harassed in bathrooms by other women thinking they are trans than actual trans women are harassing women. I’m not going to get emotionally bent out of shape about “protecting women” from something that isn’t even a problem. I view yours as being an “emotional” reaction, not a logical one 🙂
Not to step on Jerry’s toes , but… No one NEEDS to spend $125,000 get a bachelor’s degree and no one NEEDS to pay $XXXX for childcare. Those are choices. Sally is a landscaper. Her wife stays at home to raise the kids. Why should she pay for someone else’s college education and childcare?
The way I would frame this question is – Why is it $125,000 for a four-year degree in the first place? The cost of tuition has quadrupled since the seventies, even adjusting for inflation. Why not have a public or private option, where public provides “good” education and private provides “excellent”?
For childcare, it’s literally a choice of “go to work” or “stay home with kids” for single parents. What’s the right answer? There are programs to help reduce the cost of childcare, paid for by the state. Low-income families quality for them, whereas dual income families likely wouldn’t if either works a job that requires a 4-year degree.
The choice to help fund the common good through taxes is an empathetic one for me. If I didn’t have kids, I might grunt and groan about having the pay so much in property taxes for the schools, but I’d still happily to it because, as Wellstone said, “We all do better when we all do better”. I have no problem paying for social security, because it helps my grandparents retire. I can look outside my own needs and life and find solace in doing my part for society as a whole, not just myself as a person. It’s a difference between an individualistic and collective society. I’m happier being part of a collective, knowing that if I get hurt and can’t work, there are programs to help me.
The tuition for Winona State University is about $11,000/yr, $44,000 for 4 years. A person doesn’t HAVE to spend $125,000 to get a 4-year degree.
Correct – if you stay off campus (many 4-year universities still require at minimum first year students stay on campus), live with your parents or split a large house by bedroom you can reduce fees there. Those can’t be ignored, though, because for many students they’ll need to pay something to live somewhere. I paid $500/mo to inhabit the almost un-heated attic bedroom of a house in Duluth split with 9 other college students when I was first starting out. That’s still $5,000/yr if I rent for 10 months and then hope my room is still available the next year. Housing alone would add $20,000 on top of my tuition. If I went to Winona, that would still put me at a $60,000 degree if I had to rent. That’s still an almost $700/mo payment if I put it all in federal loans.
My main point is – investing in free education has never NOT benefited society. Free college means new grads get to enter the workforce PRIMED to buy a house, a car, etc. They have reduced stress, and let me tell you, student loan debt is stressful. They’re more likely to have kids, maybe even MORE kids because they can afford it. My previous work shows reducing anger and stress reduces crime. We all know the birthrate is down, and educated people are the leaders in low birthrates. Is it education in and of itself that leads people to choose not to have kids, or to have fewer? Or is it the fact that student loan debt means they can’t afford a house, let alone a kid to raise in it?
Also wanted to add, I DID struggle to get my degree. I joined the military so it could be paid for. I waited until I could get a 75% scholarship from NYU to start my Master’s. I slept in my car. I worked full time while also going to school to make ends meet.
Just because I had to do all those things doesn’t mean I want the whole world to do those things. If they found a cure for cancer, would people who beat cancer through luck and radiation fight releasing the cure because THEY had to go through hell to survive?
The “paying something to live somewhere” is not unique to the college experience. If someone decides to work fast food instead of going to college they have food and rent to pay. Many/most 4-year degrees can be obtained with 2-years in community college and 2 years in university. I truly admire the efforts you went to to get yours.
I it obvious that you feel strongly about the value of post-secondary education. I hope you can understand that not everyone shares your outlook and some people may resent being taxed for something that they don’t value, does not directly benefit them but does directly benefit others. (I.E. If you’ll pay $100,000 for my neighbor’s kid’s Egyptian studies degree, why won’t you pay $100,000 for my kid to buy tools to start his lawncare business?)
That is why I favor a limited government. Rather that both of us giving the government $1000 earmarked for social programs and fighting about how to spend it, I would prefer we keep our $1000 and you can donate yours to an education fund and I can put mine in a business incubator fund or I can keep it and be a greedy a-hole.
You are absolutely correct, paying for rent isn’t unique to college students. People working fast food are making roughly $15/average, or $31,200/yr. The living wage in Minnesota for a single adult is $23.31 for a single adult, no kids. Reference: Living Wage Calculator – Living Wage Calculation for Minnesota. Even if both adults in a marriage worked in fast food, the living wage would barely be met or barely missed depending on how they fall against the averages
($31.94 for two adults, no kids). They’re about $8 short of the living wage required for two adults with a single kid ($38.68). Corporations are making BILLIONS/yr. Why can’t they cut their profits a percentage to make people comfortable enough to live?
I absolutely understand the disparity between entrepreneurial ventures and educational ones. I would absolutely support limited-use grants for entrepreneurs to explore their business model. I remember even in the AutoTech vocational school I attended; people waffled on whether to invest money into tools. A new Snap-On kit with the rolling box could set you back $10K, but a set of SOME kind of tools that wouldn’t break every 3 days and a rolling box was the minimum to get hired in the industry.
I would think it’s even better if the grant process involves having a bank look at the business model and determine marketability like it was a loan. If it doesn’t meet the requirements for a loan, the applicant would at least receive an analysis of what they can afford in tools based on their model so their expectations were solidly set. This would help the young entrepreneur learn about open-market business expectations. The extra step is not to disadvantage the entrepreneur over the collegiate, but it actually prepare them for real life. I also think the same process of expectation setting should be done for college applicants. Oh, you want a $60K degree that will earn you $50K a year? Let’s talk real talk about if that will allow you to live the life you dream of. Maybe public school could even deny a bad idea, but not discourage them from re-applying. Just spitballing here.
Based on your comments I have a hard time believing you’re just a greedy a-hole! 😉
Would you prefer those opt-outs to pay no taxes, or just the subset they agree with? For example, $1000 a year for road maintenance but $0/yr for CCPA, SNAP and Medicaid? By the nature of existing we all take advantage of tax benefits, so excusing opt-outs from ALL taxes seems problematic.
I also want less government, but when I say it, I mean less bureaucratic checks; less control of the government in the way that people live their lives. I also want more from the government: more transparency. More power directly to the people. Many people are apathetic, but what if there were polls for the people who care enough to weigh in? Sent via mail, email, text, whatever, but split up by district. Each representative votes as their district’s registered voters dictates. Representative optional at this point. Our technology is there – what do you think of something like that?
I know it sounds radical, but in a perfect world, I would like to privatize most of the social programs. Having them run by politicians makes them susceptible to the whims of the party in power. One party gives, then the other party takes it away. They use that leverage to retain or gain power. I would love a stripped down, basic needs government but a robust private charitable eco-system that is funded by people who believe in the charity, not by people who are forced to pay into it.
Short of that, if the government MUST be involved, remove their ability to directly allocate funds to the social programs and instead let people declare where they want that portion of their taxes to go. When they file their taxes that can opt for social program distributions mixes recommended by the different caucuses (similar to mutual funds). There could be a liberal mix, a progressive mix, a green mix, a moderate mix, a conservative mix, etc…) Want to pay extra into that fund? You can do that too!
As far as the living wage issue goes: That’s another issue the government doesn’t need to get involved in. I have a job I need done and a price that I’m willing to pay, If you don’t want to do it for my price, move on. If enough people “move on” I’ll have to adjust my price. It’s a simple private transaction.
A friend of mine owns a small boutique and she had to let all of her staff go and now runs her shop with just herself and her husband. The 60 hours of paid help (plus the required benefits) she was paying cost her more than she was earning. Sadly, the two older ladies she let go wanted to just work for less money, but that that would have been illegal.
Every job doesn’t need to meet a living wage threshold. A car wash I go to used to have an attendant, most of them high school aged. I believe this was a pretty easy job, but when the government raised the minimum wage and required addition benefits, they simply eliminated the role and put in a touch pad.
I’ve never really thought about it in this way, but I have a couple of concerns. I do love the idea of being able to choose where you invest your money, but my concern is that most of our individualistic culture would choose to not invest in things like Medicaid, SNAP, etc. Then when they fall on hard times, how do they qualify? If they’ve never spent one red cent of their own money to fund these programs, but suddenly they lose their job and need unemployment, what do we do then? I do like the basic idea of your dispersion. I wonder if that’s ever been tried?
In a perfect free-market capitalist society, this might work. That would require workers to better stand up for their rights. People will take a job out of desperation to get SOME money in if they’re struggling, so that affirms that price that is below a living wage. Most Americans have something like less than $1000 in savings. They can’t afford to pass up a paying job, even if the wage is exploitative.
This is an interesting topic as well. I’ve been helping out with a project at work to help automate the “simple” work a SOC Analyst does and reduce the amount of time the more experienced workers need to spend on repetitive tasks. I know full well that that kind of technology can be used to replace a less experienced human entirely, and have been wrestling with my morals on being part of that cycle.
My thought is, the jobs that can be easily replaced with AI without any interruption to service..maybe they should be in some cases? If the living wage isn’t enough to make a go of it for even a single adult, why should we expect people to fill it? There are help wanted signs everywhere for things like the job you described, that no one can fill because they can’t make it. My thought is that most corporations are making BILLIONS off the back of the workers they aren’t paying a living wage to. Maybe the right answer is to look at size or average profit of the company, and require they pay above a certain wage at that point?
I have a friend who owns his own contracting business and bitches and moans every time he’s required to pay a little more for his employees or provide better benefits.
He’s a millionaire many times over. I can’t feel bad for him.
I can feel bad for your boutique owner friend, because she’s barely making a living herself. If her profit per year is less than $1M, maybe she should be exempt? That would be better for small businesses all over. The types of jobs high schoolers and elderly women enjoy.
How about this: Replace ALL means-tested programs–SNAP, HUD, childcare, etc., etc., etc. with a single, steeply-graduated negative income tax. Current welfare workers would give up all the paperwork and qualifying tasks, and concentrate on actually helping recipients with finding child care or education or work, or gaining life or job skills or marriage counseling. Everybody files an income tax and requires only a sign-off by the welfare officer that “adequate progress” is being made. Simple, cost slightly lower, much better results. (still need to fix the public schools)
In this case, where does the money come from, though? How do the welfare workers get paid? How do people afford childcare, food, education, etc.? I see the value in the idea, where paperwork is cut and there is a more direct line to benefits. This could leave the system even more open to fraud with not as many checks and balances.
I feel that income tax should sharply increase as income increases, past a certain threshold. I currently pay 24% federal income tax as a married person filing jointly with two kids. Not including state tax. Billionaires pay an effective tax rate of less than I do, averaging less than 3% true tax rate. Less than 1% in many cases. If my income averages $250K, I’m paying $60K/yr into federal income tax. I’m left with enough to live comfortably. If Elon Musk makes $1B/yr. and pays 3% as he did previously (The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax — ProPublica) he pays in 30,000,000 and is left with a yearly income of $970,000,000. That’s enough for him to spend $2,657,534 daily to spend it all.
I see our problem with taxes as less of a you-and-I problem. It’s more of a corporate greed and 1% problem. I pay my fair share to live in society, why don’t they? One single billionaire paying the same income rate that I do would fix God knows how many problems with our system.
You obviously missed (because I didn’t explain) my concept of the negative income tax. The whole idea is to a) get rid of the welfare cliff and b) return welfare to the original notion of helping people out of poverty. By “steeply graduated” I mean that if you find a few odd jobs and make $2000 a year, you get your full poverty level of benefits PLUS the $2000. Get a full time minwage job and make $20,000, your welfare benefits get cut back but you still get to keep, maybe, $10,000 of your wages in addition to those benefits. When you are making poverty-line money, eventually, you pay NO taxes, positive or negative, unlike the current ridiculous and unfair tax code.
The second part of this is that to collect these tax benefits, everyone MUST file a tax return– a simple one, presumably. The government would still pay for welfare workers (let’s return their titles to “social workers” as was) but they would have nothing to do except HELP people, learn life skills and job skills of all kinds and then, most importantly, SIGN OFF on the tax return that “adequate progress” was being made. That might get harsh in some cases, at which the old and highly effective incentive notion of “root, hog, or die” needs to come into play. Hopefully those are nil, compassion says they would be, but reality says that when Wisconsin added a work requirement, the welfare rolls dropped 30%.
And you and I are going to disagree wildly about the IRS tax code, except both agree it is seriously out of whack. I will point out that the top 1% of income-earners pay something like 25% of the total taxes, and the bottom 50% pay nothing. That’s not fair, yet there is not a single “loophole” in the tax code that was not put there by Congress for some “social engineering” purpose. My solution is the FAIR tax. It abolishes the IRS code, and most federal taxes in favor of a single-rate national retail sales tax. Only retailers file a tax return. Simple, and absolutely fair, because everyone pays the exact same percentage. BUT, and here is the beauty of it: Everybody ALSO receives a monthly check for the amount they would pay in sales taxes if they spent the poverty-level amount. Thus, the tax is perfectly progressive =above= the poverty line, i.e. earn and spend one dollar more you pay $0.23, spend $100,000 more, you pay $23,000, UNLESS, you invested it in your business, your retirement, or gave it to charity. Many other advantages, including elimination of the economic distortions built into the IRS code, the $400 billion spent on compliance, at least 10 days of my time recovered, the start of Social Security reform and welfare reform. The biggest argument I hear against it is it is too sensible and therefore cannot pass Congress (you know, the opposite of Progress).
PMFBI, but the whole notion that government knows how to spend your money (or somebody else’s money) better than you do, is ridiculous on its face. Some things, yes, like national defense and highways (still done by private contractors). But looking after individuals is NOT a government responsibility and is routinely done VERY badly. Childcare costs can be reduced without government. Single-parent families are a /result/ of welfare. Government schools spend far too much and achieve far too little. Walz refuses to allow private money to flow to our schools, public or private. Social Security is rapidly going broke and does not NEED to be, with a little reform. I’ve done the math. And we had an effective collective society for a long time; our government is depriving us of that. They’ve taken the words “promote the general welfare” and changed it to “PROVIDE the general welfare.”
I don’t believe this at all. Did your parents stay married? I don’t know about your upbringing at all. My mom and dad divorced, and my mom made more than my dad. If women who were previously staying in unhappy or abusive marriages who had no control of their own finances before get a chance to lead a happier, healthier life because of welfare, great. Welfare didn’t create abusive relationships where the woman couldn’t divorce their spouse. Do you think women should stay in abusive marriages just to stay off welfare?
Private money in schools is a contentious topic. See here: What’s Wrong With Private Funding for Public Schools? – Dissent Magazine. My kids go to Lakeville Schools but we live in Burnsville (open enrollment). Lakeville is voting on a referendum to add something like $40/month in taxes to each house for 10 years. They want to add on to their schools. In Lakeville, where the median income is high, they’re likely to get it. Cambridge, MN, just ran something similar where people could choose to approve a school referendum that would cost $16/mo per house. It got torn apart faster than a stuffed animal in my Cane Corso’s jaws. No approval.
The same idea goes with fundraising. Lower incomes in an area means less private money that people can put into schools. The Catholic School I went to growing up needed $280,000 from the community to stay open, and the jury is out on whether they achieved it. Last update they were at $110,000. Fundraiser for Jessica Alexander by Amy Rutten : Thanksgiving for Tomorrow. Rally to Save Our School. In a town where the average income is $52K, people can’t afford to give much. Many of us who left the area have also left the Church.
The point is – Private Money in Public Schools always seems to lead to an even greater wealth and experience inequality for students.
Perhaps you were not aware that more black kids once lived in two-parent families than white kids. That was before the Great Society, which ushered in one peculiar rule. Used to be if you were on welfare and there was a “man in the house” (verified by occasional random inspections) HE was responsible for the kids. It wasn’t good by compassion standards, but it was better social policy. But when the rule was removed, the economic incentives changed so that single mothers could get benefits, and even some single fathers. Sen. Patrick Moynihan produced a famous report on exactly this phenomenon, and candidate for governor Kendall Qualls has been trying gain focus on fixing this situation.
Interesting. “The point is – Private Money in Public Schools always seems to lead to an even greater wealth and experience inequality for students.” I’ve done the math, and more PUBLIC money in public schools leads to greater achievement disparities (and subsequent economic success).
My fundamental belief is that public education is indeed a public good, to be financed at public expense. However, nothing requires that “public education” must be done by public employees, in public buildings, with rigid government regulations and requirements. And the evidence is overwhelming that it should NOT be.
Dang, forgot to subscribe and didn’t get a chance to reply to your misunderstandings. (If you find a better word, let me know.)
“If you voted for him, you didn’t get what you voted for.” I voted for a pragmatic problem-solver, someone to put the US back on the right track after too many years of wrong track or no-track governance. Exactly what I wanted.
“How do you, personally, propose we all do better? You can rail against welfare, but what about education?” Government welfare is wrong in concept and grossly inefficacious in practice. It must be. Rather than “last resort” it is “first resort,” crowds out private charity AND private initiative (see “welfare cliff”) while wrecking the social contract. Do the math and you will realize that we could all “do better” if government did FAR LESS. And education is the same way. Do the math as I did and you discover that our public schools are not only producing 50% “rejects” who cannot read at grade level, but the MORE money we spend the lower the academic performance becomes! We need to stop measuring inputs (money spent) rather than outcomes– kids educated or people working. THAT is /sensible/ compassion.
“Tell me where exactly is anyone defending these people.” By standing in the way of arresting criminals, regardless of their color, and by attacking, criticizing (and refusing to fund) law enforcement.
“why do you continue to further the narrative that all black and brown people are the same because of their worst members?” Why do you continue to insist that all illegal aliens or criminals are black or brown?
“Please tell me why you support the war?” It’s pretty simple. Normally these things are resolved by diplomacy, right? Negotiation and compromise? So how do you propose we negotiate and compromise with people whose clearly stated and intractable first demand is that we all be killed? Rabid dogs, etc…. And it still takes two sides to make a peace but only one side to make a war. And to quote a forgotten general “ain’t nobody more peaceable than a dead man.”
“I’m not going to get emotionally bent out of shape about “protecting women” from something that isn’t even a problem. I view yours as being an “emotional” reaction, not a logical one” I could have done without this little sideshow. You view it “logical” that biological men should use women’s private spaces? It is not a problem? Then why does government step in, against such obvious logic, and command it to be a possibility?
So, how do you feel about him effectively ruining a century of international relations and cred building? No country wants to come to our aid. Our country is more divided than ever. What problems are you seeing solved? What specific policies suit you?
The Law Enforcement in the US has been highly militarized and receives far less training than in other countries. 3-8 months is average here, 47 days for ICE officers. In Germany, they get 3 years. Both Germany and the US spend about 1% of the GDP on the police. They get SWAT vehicles, body armor, shields, etc, but don’t get the training to properly de-escalate. “Defunding” the police really means forcing them to do better rather than spend more.
I don’t. ICE does. As a woman, I fear white men more than any other groups because white men have done the most damage to myself and my friends. White Catholic priests, white friends’ dads, white high school and college boys who didn’t learn about consent. Tell me, how many people has ICE arrested that aren’t black or brown?
The situation in Iran was solved by diplomacy. Trump blew it up. You can’t tell me that backing out of a deal we made in good faith is a lack of diplomacy on Iran’s part.
I view it as NOT A PROBLEM lol. I went to a concert in St. Paul Tuesday on Trans Day of Visibility. Guess how many trans women were in the bathroom when I went? Guess how many women looked uncomfortable? Guess how many assaults there weren’t? I traded trinkets (little charms people wear to concerts, as I learned from my cousin who actually does things like that regularly lol) with a lovely trans woman at the sinks.
The government needs to step in and protect trans people from people who, I’m guessing like you, see them as an abominating with no place in society despite them fitting in just fine
“So, how do you feel about him effectively ruining a century of international relations and cred building?” I honestly do NOT know what you are talking about! Notice how the Arab nations have suddenly decided they like us better than Iran? Even talking about bypassing Hormuz with pipelines through Israel? How quickly NATO stepped up from 2% of GDP for defense to 5%? How Colombia and Bolivia (IIRC) are helping with narco interdiction?
“The situation in Iran was solved by diplomacy. Trump blew it up. You can’t tell me that backing out of a deal we made in good faith is a lack of diplomacy on Iran’s part.” Maybe you can argue the point, but here is what I see. Iran promised open inspections, denied many sites, hid others DEEP underground. Promised peaceful enrichment to 3.7%, have 450kg of 60%, within a week of a bomb. Promised no missile over 2000km, but just shot two off with a 4000km range. Claimed nothing to do with Hamas, Houthis or Hezbollah. They lied. Their ideology PERMITS them to lie freely. What kind of diplomacy is that, when you are dealing with known liars whose stated aim is your death?
Far be it from me to criticize anybody’s self-delusion or lifestyle. I just don’t want it forced on minors, or be forced to accept them as what they say they are. Don’t tell me your pronouns; if I make a mistake I’ll apologize (and I have done it). Unless it is obvious it is YOUR mistake. You can’t criticize Mr. Noem and then say I shouldn’t criticize others like him. Both or neither.
“Happy Sunday Y’all” I love that about you Hannah Krebs.
This was in the Wall Street Journal on Friday:
‘No Kings’: Politics as Bad Group Therapy
Participants in the rallies accomplish nothing practical but feel heard, validated and affirmed.
By Jonathan Alpert
After a “No Kings” rally last October, I was walking through the area and paused to read the signs. A woman asked me, “Aren’t these great?””I don’t know,” I replied. “I kind of like some of Trump’s policies.”
“Well, f— you then.”
The No Kings rallies are set to return Saturday—the third such round in the past year—built around a slogan that suggests Americans are living under something closer to tyranny than democracy. It’s a striking claim for a country that fought a revolution to overthrow a king and hasn’t had one since. Still, it’s revealing. It reflects a broader shift in how political disagreement is understood—not as a clash of views, but as a struggle between victims and villains.
The U.S. remains what it has long been: a contentious, often frustrating democracy shaped by competing interests and imperfect leadership. But describing it in more dramatic terms raises the emotional stakes. It transforms ordinary political conflict into something more absolute—and more psychologically satisfying.
In my work as a psychotherapist, I’ve seen a parallel change in how people intetpret their personal lives. Feelings are increasingly treated not as signals to examine but as conclusions to affrm. Discomfort is no longer something to work through but something to explain— often by projecting blame onto an external source. This mindset doesn’t stay in the therapy room. It has begun to shape political life, and the No Kings rallies offer a framework that favors affirmation over scrutiny: a clean moral narrative in which there are those who are wronged, and those responsible for the wrongdoing.
At their core. the rallies resemble bad groun theraov—gatherings that offer validation.
solidarity and emotional release. They feel good in the moment. Participants vent, find
reinforcement among like-minded people, and leave feeling heard and aligned. The experience can seem productive, even clarifying. But like bad group therapy, it stops at validation. The feelings are processed but not challenged, reinforced but not examined. There is relief but little resolution, and the underlymg problems remain. It offers the feeling of progress without the substance of it.
The composition of these rallies helps explain part of their dynamic. According to a survey conducted at a No Kings rally in the District of Columbia, attendees skew heavily toward highly educated, left-leaning white women in their 40s. This demographic stands at the forefront of the broader shift toward therapeutic language, in which emotional experience is elevated, validated and often treated as a kind of truth in itsel€ Many learn about the rallies through social networks, where political views and identity are intertwined.
This helps explain why disagreement in these settings can feel less like a difference of opinion and more like a breach of reality. That is part of their appeal. These gatherings offer not only political expression but psychological alignment—a sense of being among others who see the world the same way. The effect can be energizing but also insulating, as politics organized around shared feeling begins to drift away from shared fact.
The atmosphere often reflects this shift. Many rallies have taken on a performative, even theatrical quality, with costumes and exaggerated symbolism replacing direct political engagement. That approach lowers the stakes of confrontation but reinforces the idea that the primary goal is expression rather than persuasion.
The pattern extends beyond protests. In some corners of the culture, people who have committed or been accused of violence—such as Luigi Mangione (who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murdering health-insurance executive Brian Thompson)—have been recast as antiestablishment symbols, valued less for their actions than for what they appear to represent. The details differ, but the impulse is the same: a search for villains who make anger feel justified.
This style of politics rewards intensity over accuracy and certainty over nuance. It makes compromise diffcult and disagreement suspect, shifting the goal from persuasion to affirmation. This helps explain why such movements can feel more effective than they are.
That cycle—expression, validation, temporary relief—can be powerful. It gives the impression that something meaningful has occurred. But without friction, challenge or genuine engagement with opposing views, little is resolved. Participants are left with a sense of involvement but few tangible outcomes.
As the rallies return, they will likely generate energy, visibility and a sense of shared
purpose. But they will also illustrate a familiar trade-off: When politics becomes organized around emotional validation, it can feel more satisfying even as it becomes less effective.
Democratic systems depend on something more demanding: the ability to tolerate disagreement, engage with complexity and distinguish between what feels true and what is demonstrably so. That process is often uncomfortable. It requires restraint, patience and a willingness to confront ideas that don’t affirm one’s own perspective.
The No Kings rallies, for all their intensity, transform frustration into clarity. They turn disagreement into moral certainty. In doing so, they risk turning politics into something that feels good in the moment—and accomplishes almost nothing.
Mr. Alpert is a psychotherapist practicing in New York and Washington and author of “Therapy Nation, “forthcoming in May.
I will maintain that an anti-Trump rally is the wrong place to engage in pro-Trump discussion.
As you can see from reading my blog, I have my reasons for disliking Trump that are rooted in fact. If you were to approach me here, on an even playing field, I’m happy to hear you out on policies you agree with and why you feel that way. At No Kings I’d probably just walk away. People are there for one cause, not to be convinced they’re wrong.
Are we to say that all rallies are wrong? Civil rights marches were just echo chambers for people, regardless of whether their cause was just or not? It’s absolutely okay to not support the message of “No Kings”. I don’t support the message of “Unite the Right”, but I wouldn’t say that those people don’t believe in the cause they’re supporting. Maybe they don’t have all the facts. Maybe they are entranced by the echo chamber. The reality is, they all showed for because of their beliefs, not because of the chance to be “part of something”.
Dang, forgot to subscribe and missed out on a great discussion! My 2 cents here at the end is,
“Maybe they don’t have all the facts. Maybe they are entranced by the echo chamber. The reality is, they all showed for because of their beliefs, not because of the chance to be “part of something”.
Is it possible that you might see this being said of EITHER side, including yours? And I recall Dr. King’s marches; they actually meant to and DID change things, for the better, rather than just harden resistance as the current street performances do.
Just saw a video made by one of “us” at No Kings. I was surprised that most of those folks looked like just regular folks. I couldn’t even readily identify those to whom the song “Old Hippie” might apply. I did see one guy (sorry, I almost said weirdo) in a frog costume. Whatever, except when asked why, he said that the snipers wouldn’t shoot a frog. ?? Most of the signs seemed homemade, that’s good, most of them innocent without making sense (IMHO), and no obvious violence. Maybe that is due to the prominent speakers being less incendiary than some, and preaching unity within the cause, like the enemy is not here sort of thing. Wonder how many will attend the big April 14th rally?
Still waiting an RSVP for the April 14th rally.