Showing posts sorted by date for query EDUCATION. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query EDUCATION. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

'Thanks a lot, Trump': Wyoming conservatives divided ahead of US midterms

Cover image: REPORTERS © FRANCE 24

Issued on: 16/10/2026 
35:18 min  From the show


Famous for its cowboy culture, Wyoming is the least populated, the most rural and the most conservative of all the US states. With two weeks to go until the midterm elections, our reporters James André and Sylvain Rousseau travelled across this Republican stronghold and found that the party of US President Donald Trump is deeply divided in the Cowboy State.


Come election season in the United States, news networks tend to flock to the swing states, the battlegrounds that shape the outcome of the vote. Two weeks ahead of the US midterm elections, FRANCE 24 decided to go in the opposite direction and visit the reddest of the red states: Wyoming.

US President Donald Trump carried 70 percent of the vote in Wyoming in his three presidential runs. The state is so overwhelmingly Republican that the decisive vote is not the midterm election there, but rather the Republican primaries that took place on August 18. The results are very clear.

In 2024, Wyoming voters had given an outright majority to the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, a hard-right organisation that emerged in the wake of Trump's MAGA movement. Wyoming was the first and only state to offer this national movement a majority. In the 2026 primaries, the Freedom Caucus was aiming for a supermajority in both chambers of the Wyoming Congress. But it got a spectacular rebuke from voters, losing its majority in the state House of Representatives and official posts across the board.

This electoral defeat is significant because the Freedom Caucus is the local incarnation of a form of "ultra-Trumpism". For two years, its lawmakers imported a hardline version of Trump's methods and agenda to Wyoming. They cut budgets and passed bills aligned with their conservative views. They sought to reform education, abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. They also constantly attacked the state's rare Democrats, and what they call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only): traditional, old-school Republicans whom they accuse of betraying the party's values.

In the meantime, the more traditional forces within the Republican establishment got organised to take their party back. During the campaign, political action committees spent millions trying to sway Wyoming's 580,000 residents. The state is a perfect target with a very small, already conservative population and two US Senate seats in Washington – just as many as California or Texas.

This report goes inside the battle within the Republican Party between the ultra-conservative bloc and the more moderate traditionalists. It also explores a paradox: Wyomingites are turning on Trump, but will carry on voting Republican – no matter what.

Source: futureschools.substack.com

French students’ demonstrations are on the front pages now. But the real story isn’t being reported. It’s about funding – and much more. To understand what’s happening in education globally – including the US – we need to look at who’s in control of what’s learned, taught, and funded. The national and international can’t be separated.

TESTING, TESTING, TESTING

Increasingly, US education is being blasted by politicians, seemingly non-partisan groups, and on social media because schools and teachers have failed to educate our kids. Their evidence? Declining scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NAEP), better known as the “nation’s report card.”

NAEP is the US version of international tests of student achievement developed by the OECD, (the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), an international economic organization of governments. Although news reports don’t explain this, our “national report card” for educational achievement, aligns for the most part with the OECD’s test, PISA, (Program for International Student Assessment) in math and literacy. (AI is coming soon.) Why only literacy and math? Why not literature, art, sciences, and social studies? Because according to the OECD, reading and math are the most important skills workers need to compete in the global economy, and the purpose of education is preparing workers for the labor market.

Though educational systems differ greatly globally, solutions to increase academic achievement increasingly look the same: Privatize, use tech, and more closely align what is taught with the tests.

However, in France’s upcoming elections for president, one major candidates, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who heads a movement/party called La France Insoumise (France Unbowed), is rejecting not only the responsibility of schools (and teachers) for the decline, he’s contesting the rationale for the tests. [i] France has a national funded education system, whereas the US Constitution makes education a responsibility of the states. Still, Mélenchon’s statement about testing, education’s purposes, and its funding, are worth considering as we in the US face the same orchestrated outrage over decline in test scores.

Here is Mélenchon’s statement with our comments about how it relates testing in the US.

A Flood of Hypocrisy Over the PISA Ranking Results

Since the publication of the new results from the OECD’s survey on student performance on the so-called “PISA” test, the right wing has been issuing an increasing number of reactions that are as alarmist as they are hypocritical.

First, I would like to point out that the PISA rankings are not compatible with the French republican vision of education. Developed by an organization dedicated to measuring economic performance—which is itself assessed according to questionable standards—it primarily evaluates the ability of education systems to produce the workforce that the market needs. But it fails to take into account other key dimensions of education, such as training in critical thinking, analysis, and cultural openness. Moreover, the overall decline in test scores should be interpreted as the failure of a comprehensive policy of commodifying education, a policy that the test itself has helped to advance.

But above all, it is laughable to see Emmanuel Macron’s [note: Macron was the former President of France, unable to run for a third term] former ministers of education, budget, and prime ministers shedding tears over the decline in French school performance. For this decline proves one thing: the budget cuts in education that they decided upon are having serious consequences.

Let’s review the record of “Macronism” for French schools:

• Class sizes are larger than the European Union average

• Two out of three schools began the 2026 school year with an incomplete teaching staff

• One out of every ten class hours is lost for students because there aren’t enough substitute teachers in France

• French teachers are the lowest-paid in Europe and lack quality professional training.

Starting in the 2027 school year, we must reverse this trend—not to climb the PISA rankings, but because our youth are our greatest asset. There will therefore be a significant increase in education spending to grant permanent status to temporary staff in the national education system, recruit teachers and raise their salaries, establish university-level schools for education professions with early recruitment of future teachers, provide free school meals and supplies, and renovate school facilities.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version). Translation reviewed by Chloe Asselin.

Lois:

Mélenchon’s statement speaks to the flood of publicity over declining test scores, which will greatly increase after the midterm elections. He identifies the origins of the tests in the OECD’s demand to make education train workers for the global economy, and he questions that purpose. In contrast, both the Democrats and Republicans, and Bernie Sanders too, embrace making education serve the economy.

Mélenchon argues for France’s right to have education carry out the nation’s political values, not those of the OECD. And he argues the focus on training workers for the labor market marginalizes other essential purposes of education, including “critical thinking, analysis, and cultural openness.” He fuses opposition to the far Right’s ideological campaign (of nativism, racism, patriarchy, cultural hegemony) with support for greatly increased funding for all the schools in France.

Compare Mélenchon’s vision with what we hear in the US. Democrats are all-in for making tests (and more tech) the basis of identifying and rectifying racial disparities in education, and some of the big money in tech, which went to Trump and the GOP in November 2024, now supports keeping the tests and intensifying “privatization with datafication” with AI. Even our national unions long ago surrendered even the pretense of wanting to limit use of standardized testing to measure student learning.

One officer of a local known for its defense of social justice told me the union was being beaten down for its declining test scores and wondered how to address this. The answer is in Mélenchon’s statement, supported by research and analysis done about the testing before it became embedded in the schools – and accepted as inevitable. We know if we raise spending from “awful” to “not so bad,” and the money goes for schools teach to the test, as Mississippi has done in its well-publicized “miracle,” we can probably raise test scores and diminish (some) racial disparities – in the early years, though even that accomplishment is questionable, as this solid research shows.

As do we in the US, France deserves an education system decided by those most affected – not corporations or politicians acting on behalf of big money. As do we in the US, France needs a massive increase in funding for its schools. Although US states and local districts nominally control education, in fact, since standardized testing based on the OECD vision for our future was imposed on us, we have a de facto national curriculum – without national funding.

The new neoliberal project in education, which we will like see in full force after the midterm elections, may overturn some of Trump’s funding cuts, but any increased funding, which will likely be temporary, will come at the price of schools being even more privatized, money siphoned off for contracts to tech companies and AI, and further control of curriculum.

Mélenchon’s statement puts us back on track in terms of what we demand from politicians who want our support. And the national strike of public employee unions on September 29, 2026, including a significant contingent of primary school teachers, shows what we should demand of AFT and NEA.

Chloe:

While I did support and vote for the New Popular Front in French elections, Mélenchon is problematic. He is a politician of the French state that defends French workers but doesn’t fully question French capitalism and the legacy of French colonialism. I agree with his statements about the terrible effects of Macron’s budget cuts on French education and the limits of the PISA tests, but I believe the most important focus and voices right now are the students, teachers, and public sector workers currently out in the streets all over France protesting the Macronism of French schools. They are demanding the same things Mélenchon is but it’s coming from a mass uprising which I find more powerful than from a politician. They are going beyond Melanchon’s statement and questioning the French state (not only Macron) that has ignored French young people for too long.

As a teacher, I find it powerful that the high schoolers are literally saying that student learning conditions are teacher working conditions which is amazing coming from students rather than teachers. The education systems around the world can only be improved when students, teachers, families, and community members come together to make their own demands rather than allow governments to make decisions for them.

[i] More about Mélenchon and La France Insoumise, the party and candidate.


This article was originally published by futureschools.substack.com; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.
Trust In Science Falls Fastest Among Those Left Behind

Poor access to healthcare, limited local influence over research priorities, and an unequal distribution of scientific benefits are undermining public confidence in science, experts warn, following the release of a global trust survey.


The Wellcome Global Monitor 2026, based on more than 140,000 respondents in 140 countries, found that the share of people expressing at least some trust in science fell from 77 percent in 2018 to 72 percent in 2025, after peaking at 80 percent in 2020, while those with little or no trust rose to 19 percent.

Trust is lower among people facing financial hardship and higher among those confident in local healthcare; globally, only 36 percent believe science benefits most people in their country, pointing to unmet expectations about access and equitable benefits.

Regional patterns differ—Africa saw no pandemic-era trust boost amid vaccine and research-priority frustrations, while Latin America and parts of Western Asia show varied trends—leading experts to emphasize that trust must be earned through locally led research and demonstrated responsiveness to community needs.


The Wellcome Global Monitor 2026 surveyed more than 140,000 people in 140 countries in 2025 and found that trust in science had fallen below pre-pandemic levels.

To track changes over time, researchers compared results from 108 countries surveyed in 2018, 2020 and 2025. The proportion of respondents expressing at least some trust in science fell from 77 per cent in 2018 to 72 per cent in 2025, after rising to 80 per cent during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.


Over the same period, those reporting little or no trust in science rose from 13 per cent in both 2018 and 2020 to 19 per cent in 2025.

Trust in scientists themselves also declined. The share of people expressing “a lot” of trust in scientists dropped to 32 per cent in 2025, down from 34 per cent in 2018 and 43 per cent in 2020.

“There isn’t a crisis or a wholesale collapse,” said Mark Henderson, executive director of corporate affairs and engagement at Wellcome, presenting the findings at the World Health Summit in Berlin on Monday (12 October).

He added: “There is a substantial base of trust. But there’s also movement and there’s fragility underneath the surface.”

The findings show a growing gap between people’s expectations of science and their experiences of its benefits. Trust was lowest among people struggling financially and higher among those who had confidence in their local healthcare institutions.

Overall, 26 per cent of respondents said they trusted science “a lot”. But this rose to 43 per cent among those who said they had a lot of confidence in their country’s hospitals and health clinics.


Globally, 39 per cent of people who said they were living comfortably trusted science “a lot”, compared with 20 per cent of those struggling financially.

Evelyn Gitau, chief scientific officer at the Science for Africa Foundation, who also spoke at the launch event, told SciDev.Net: “It’s people saying: my life is hard, and while I know science can fix it, it’s not fixing it. So I have no trust.”

Perceptions of who benefits from research also varied. Although 81 per cent of respondents said scientific work benefits people like them, only 36 per cent said it benefits most people in their country. One in five said science benefits very few people.

John Besley, a science communication scholar at Michigan State University in the United States, who was not involved in the report, told SciDev.Net: “The research says we need to do more than just tell people about benefits.

“To build trust, scientists need to demonstrate they are listening, acting with integrity, and doing research that meets real needs.”

Philippa Michael, head of public initiatives at Wellcome, said the Monitor identifies where trust has fallen but does not explain why.

She told SciDev.Net: “We shouldn’t expect or ask for [trust]. We need to earn it.

“It’s a long-term effort, and absolutely not something which can be assumed or asked for in the middle of a response situation.”
Africa: ‘needs unmet’

The global averages mask regional differences, however. Parts of Africa did not see the pandemic-era boost in trust experienced in other places.


“The pandemic didn’t actually change the trajectory for us,” said Gitau, pointing to barriers such as shortages of the BCG vaccine for tuberculosis and unequal access to COVID-19 vaccines.

In Kenya, for example, she said people encountered online registration barriers and supply constraints linked to global vaccine distribution.

She added: “This loss of trust is not a miscommunication thing. It’s not even an education thing.

“It’s: if it’s so hard to get them, it’s not for us, and science clearly doesn’t address our needs.”

Gitau said skepticism often reflects frustration over the influences shaping research agendas, rather than doubts about science itself.

“It’s not because people don’t believe science works. It’s the question of whose priorities these are,” she said, stressing the importance of locally led research and community engagement.

Gitau urged science funding agencies in Africa to set research priorities in line with the African Union’s Agenda 2063.

Michael added that Wellcome—a major funder of health research in Africa—has a responsibility to foster trust, including by supporting locally led research.
Western Asia: ‘stark disparities’

Similar tensions also arise in Western Asia, where countries differ sharply in research investment, political stability and access to scientific advances.

“While Saudi Arabia and the UAE invest heavily in artificial intelligence and scientific research, countries such as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Palestine face severe instability,” said Tarek Kabil, professor emeritus of biotechnology at Cairo University and a lead author of the Arab States chapter of the UNESCO Science Report.

“Such inequalities may undermine trust among people who feel disconnected from scientific progress.”

Algeria illustrates how trust and perceptions of research benefits can move in different directions. Trust rose between 2018 and 2020 before declining in 2025, while the share of people who believe research benefits most people continued to increase, surpassing the global average.

Kabil says research in the region is often slow to inform policy, communication lacks transparency, and science is sometimes politicised to justify poorly understood government decisions.

Without transparency and public engagement, he warned, institutions “risk leaving a vacuum filled by misinformation and rumours on social media”.
Latin America: ‘Not a crisis of confidence’

In Latin America, trends vary between countries. In Brazil, the share of people expressing at least some trust in science rose from 64 per cent in 2018 to 74 per cent in 2025, after peaking at 76 per cent in 2020. In Chile, it reached 81 per cent in 2020 before falling to 63 per cent in 2025.


Carmelo Polino, a lecturer at the University of Oviedo in Spain who has worked on science perception surveys across Latin America, said the decline “does not signify a widespread crisis of confidence”.

He said Chile’s latest national survey data showed that a large percentage of people still expected to see significant future benefits from science and technology.

Commenting on the Global Monitor’s findings, he said: “We must not mistake such reservations for a rejection of science.

“People can acknowledge the authority of scientific knowledge while simultaneously questioning how its benefits are shared.”

In a region shaped by inequality, Polino believes the challenge is “how to make science more accessible, participatory and socially relevant”.

Wellcome plans to publish qualitative research on the drivers of trust in selected countries in autumn 2027. The research will explore the experiences and perceptions behind the survey findings.



This piece was produced by SciDev.Net’s Sub-Saharan Africa English desk.


About Ogechi Ekeanyanwu
Ogechi Ekeanyanwu writes for SciDev.Net
View all posts by Ogechi Ekeanyanwu →



About Luisa Massarani
Luisa Massarani has been the regional coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean since 2003. As such, she is responsible for managing the independent collaborators of SciDev.Net and other key people and organizations in the region, as well as writing journalistic articles. She also coordinates meetings, workshops and other training events on science and scientific journalism dissemination.
View all posts by Luisa Massarani →



About Bothina Osama
Bothina Osama writes for SciDev.Net
View all posts by Bothina Osama →

 

BALKAN BLOG: From Skopje to Belgrade, what Balkan protests reveal for Albania

BALKAN BLOG: From Skopje to Belgrade, what Balkan protests reveal for Albania
Prime Minister Edi Rama has been in power since 2013. / Albanian Socialist PartyFacebook
By Clare Nuttall in Glasgow October 21, 2026

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has refused to resign after over a week of daily violent protests, and several months of peaceful demonstrations. Student demonstrators are demanding he step down, but recent Balkan history shows street movements rarely topple entrenched leaders on their own.

Student demonstrations over university conditions and the cost of education turned violent in Tirana on October 13, when protesters threw stones and petrol bombs at the education ministry and set fires at government buildings. Police chief Skender Hita said 71 officers had been injured in three days of clashes, and the Bank of Albania had to reassure depositors after bank branches and cash machines were attacked.

The student protests follow the months-long demonstrations dubbed the "Flamingo Revolution", which began at the end of May over a luxury resort near the Vjosa-Narta wetlands linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. The movement, which passed 100 days in September, morphed from issue-based demonstrations to the expression of broader grievances with the way Albania is governed. Rama's resignation and a transitional government were among its central demands. 

The wave of protests present the biggest sustained challenge to Rama since he took office in 2013, and erupted only 17 months after his Socialist Party won a fourth consecutive term in the May 2025 election.

Rama's neighbours offer him precedents in both directions. Protest movements in North Macedonia and Serbia have each forced a prime minister out, but in neither case did the street alone end the ruling party's hold on power, and the region's other long-serving leaders left office through elections or the courts rather than under pressure from crowds.

Colourful Revolution 

The Colourful Revolution in what is now North Macedonia is the region's clearest case of protests ending a long rule, though it took more than two years. Nikola Gruevski, prime minister since 2006, stepped down in January 2016 under the EU- and US-brokered Przino agreement that followed mass protests over a wiretapping scandal in 2015.

The movement got its name in April 2016, when demonstrators threw paint at public buildings after then president Gjorge Ivanov pardoned 56 politicians, most of them from Gruevski's VMRO-DPMNE. Under domestic and international pressure Ivanov began withdrawing the pardons weeks later. VMRO-DPMNE still came first in the December 2016 election, and the Social Democrats' Zoran Zaev only formed a government in May 2017. 

Gruevski was later convicted and fled a prison sentence to Hungary, where he was granted asylum. VMRO-DPMNE returned to power in 2024, following widespread frustration with the Social Democrats' failures on tackling corruption and other issues. 

Serbia goes to the polls

Protests in Serbia were triggered the collapse of a concrete canopy at Novi Sad railway station on November 1, 2024, which killed 16 people. Prime minister Milos Vucevic resigned on January 28, 2025, but the student-led movement kept up its pressure on President Aleksandar Vucic for almost two more years.

Vucic eventually answered by calling a snap election for October 25, more than a year early, then resigned as president in late September to lead his Serbian Progressive Party's (SNS's) list as its candidate for prime minister. The government announced almost €1bn in one-off payments to pensioners and welfare recipients before the vote.

The election will test whether the protest movement has the ability to take on the long-ruling SNS in the ballot box. Polls have been mixed: the student list overtook the ruling party in a June poll, but a Faktor Plus survey published in September put the Vucic-led list on 48.6% against 37.1% for the students, and the pollster said the ruling party could win an absolute majority. However, things changed again in October, with the latest poll published on October 20 by the New Serbian Political Thought (NSPM) research institute showing the student-backed electoral list would win 44.5% of votes among decided voters, ahead of Vucic's ruling coalition on 42.7%. 

Leaving without the crowds

The protests that followed the Novi Sad tragedy demonstrated more sticking power than other protest movements targeting Vucic's governments including the Don't Drown Belgrade protests against the Belgrade Waterfront development, symbolised by a yellow duck. 

There have also been mass protests in other Balkan countries that have failed to dislodge established leaders. 

Among the region's other long-serving leaders, Milo Djukanovic, who ran Montenegro as prime minister or president for more than 30 years, lost power at the polls: his Democratic Party of Socialists lost the 2020 parliamentary election, and newcomer Jakov Milatovic beat him in the presidential runoff in April 2023.

In Kosovo, president Hashim Thaci resigned on November 5, 2020 when the war crimes indictment against him at the Hague-based Kosovo Specialist Chambers was confirmed. Thaci and other former Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) leaders were recently sentenced for war crimes. 

Rama's options

Rama holds a fresh mandate and a parliamentary majority, and has framed staying on as a duty to finish EU accession talks. “My responsibility is to listen to legitimate concerns, address them and keep Albania moving forward,” he told Reuters in a written statement, saying that stepping back would betray the mandate voters gave him to conclude the negotiations.

The accession process a strong card for the charismatic Albanian politician. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called Albania one of the frontrunners during a visit to Tirana on October 1. However, the protests are being closely watched, and the EU delegation in Tirana has called for an investigation into allegations of excessive police force.

Unlike the crowds in Skopje in 2016, Albania's protesters reject the traditional opposition as well as the government, chanting for both Rama and opposition leader Sali Berisha to be jailed, which leaves no obvious party to channel their demands into an election. Still, the Serbian example shows how a student-led movement can translate into an electoral force. 

That leaves him three broad paths. He can sit the protests out and rely on his majority, as Vucic did for most of the past two years. He can make concessions on the issues that set them off, as his government did in June when it suspended the Sazan island project after an EU warning, though Rama said in September that the Zvernec development could bring in more than €4bn. Or he can take the question to voters early, Vucic's gamble, whose outcome Albania will be able to judge after October 25.



Ghana seeks to bring slavery reparations into IMF and World Bank financing debate

Ghana seeks to bring slavery reparations into IMF and World Bank financing debate
/ ChannelOneTVFacebook
By bne IntelliNews October 21, 2026

Ghana has drafted a proposal to bring reparations for slavery and colonialism into the financing frameworks of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, seeking additional development resources for economies affected by historical exploitation.

The initiative marks a new phase in Africa’s campaign for reparatory justice, shifting the debate beyond apologies and historical accountability towards financial mechanisms that could address inequalities rooted in centuries of slavery and colonial rule.

Ekwow Spio-Garbrah, Ghana’s Presidential Special Envoy for Reparations, disclosed the proposal in an interview with the Ghana News Agency on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank annual meetings held in Bangkok, Thailand.

The document has been circulated within Ghana’s government but has yet to be formally presented to either institution, leaving its prospects dependent on diplomatic negotiations and support from major shareholder countries.

“The reparational agenda has not yet entered formally into this development financial institutional area, but I’m preparing for that necessity and possibility,” Spio-Garbrah said.

He described reparatory finance as an emerging concept that had not yet been introduced to the two institutions, signalling Ghana’s intention to broaden the international debate over how historical injustices should be addressed through development financing.

“The paper is intended for a global audience, so, until we introduce it, it remains there,” he said.

Spio-Garbrah, a former staff member of the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, said the draft had been presented to the presidency, the ministries of finance and foreign affairs, and the Bank of Ghana to help build a coordinated national position.

The proposal raises questions about how reparations could fit into the mandates of institutions established to address contemporary economic challenges. The IMF primarily provides balance-of-payments support and promotes macroeconomic stability, while the World Bank finances longer-term development.

Any new financing mechanism would therefore require agreement on its structure, funding sources and eligibility criteria, as well as potentially significant institutional changes. Ghana has not disclosed whether reparatory finance would involve grants, concessional loans, debt cancellation or a dedicated funding facility.

The proposal comes as African and Caribbean governments intensify efforts to turn longstanding demands for reparations into practical economic commitments. In June, the African Union and the Caribbean Community’s reparations commission endorsed a 19-point reparations framework at a three-day conference in Accra, calling for formal apologies, financial compensation, debt relief and reforms to international financial institutions.

The framework also backed a Global Reparations Fund to support countries and communities affected by slavery and colonial exploitation. It forms part of a wider African Union campaign to establish reparatory justice as an international development and policy priority.

Spio-Garbrah said Ghana was advocating legislation to establish national reparations councils across the AU’s 55 member states, providing institutional structures to coordinate the continent’s demands.

He cited Germany’s proposed €1.1bn reconstruction and development programme for Namibia, following its acknowledgement of the genocide committed against the Herero and Nama peoples under colonial rule, as an example of efforts to address historical atrocities.

The programme, set out in a 2021 joint declaration and intended to run over 30 years, has faced objections from affected communities, who reject Germany’s position that the funds are development support rather than reparations. The declaration has yet to be finalised, although Namibian President Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah said in April that the matter was set to be concluded before the end of 2026.

The Netherlands has separately earmarked €200mn for programmes addressing its slavery legacy, including education, research, remembrance and community initiatives across the Dutch kingdom and Suriname. The funding is not a scheme for direct individual compensation.

Ghana’s latest initiative follows a diplomatic breakthrough in March, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution spearheaded by President John Dramani Mahama declaring the trafficking and racialised chattel enslavement of Africans the gravest crime against humanity.

Resolution 80/250 secured 123 votes in favour, with the United States, Israel and Argentina opposing it. Another 52 countries abstained, including Britain and several European nations.

Although the resolution strengthened the diplomatic foundation for reparatory justice, it is not legally binding and does not establish an enforceable mechanism requiring countries to pay compensation.

Capitalism & slavery. : Eric Eustace Williams : Free Download, Borrow ...

May 7, 2014 · Slave trade -- Great Britain., Industries -- Great Britain -- History. [Nachdr. 8th print]. No suitable files to display here.Read more

  • Pages: 318

     

    Source: Dollars & Sense

    I dream of seeing the title of this post on bumper stickers, billboards, and personal tattoos. The slogan “Tax the rich and save the world” comes from a message from the Patriotic Millionaires—a group of more than 200 high-net-worth Americans, from investors and executives to filmmakers and heirs, who are actively lobbying Congress to raise their own taxes. 

    Millionaires are watching billionaires pull further ahead financially, and watching their coastal properties sink closer to the waterline as unchecked carbon emissions push sea levels higher. As ecological economist James K. Boyce explains, the concentration of wealth that drives carbon-intensive consumption is the same force blocking the public investment needed to address it: The ultra-wealthy have the resources to protect themselves from environmental degradation, as well as the political power to resist dealing with it. Taxing the rich could help keep the planet livable for the rest of us. 

    The growing visibility of wealth concentration is rousing a coalition of economists, lawmakers, labor unions, and the worried rich who are pushing back against four decades of trickle-down orthodoxy. Their message is gaining traction: the ultra-wealthy are not paying their fair share, and working-class voters are getting shafted.

    The Myth of 40%

    A useful place to start is with a number you’ve probably heard: According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all tax revenue. Jeff Bezos recently reiterated this scandalously misleading claim. The figure applies only to federal income taxes, ignoring both Social Security taxes and state and local taxes. The Congressional Research Service estimates that about 63% of U.S. tax filers pay more in payroll taxes—Social Security and Medicare—than they do in federal income taxes. In addition, state sales taxes and local property taxes eat up a larger percentage of the income of low and middle-income families than those at the top.  

    When the full tax picture is considered, the wealthy’s “fair share” argument really falls apart. Paul Krugman dissects Bezos’s claims in detail, and John Miller examines the Wall Street Journal’s panicky response to Republican Mitt Romney’s proposed tax reforms. The structural roots of the problem are powerfully explained by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman in The Triumph of Injustice, which documents how the U.S. tax system systematically privileges income from capital over income from labor. The most striking and consequential strategy rests on wealth accumulation: the very rich let their assets grow, untouched and tax free (capital gains aren’t taxed unless and until assets are sold for a profit). When the very rich need cash, they borrow against those assets at interest rates far below the income tax rate on wages—allowing wealth to compound while generating no taxable income at all. Capitalists have good reason to love capital.

    California in the Headlines

    In a Left Hook post last October, I described some important steps toward “taxing the top.” Now California has captured national attention with a ballot initiative that could make history. This coming November, voters in the state will decide on the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act—a one-time levy of 5% on billionaire wealth, spread over five years. If passed, it would be the first tax anywhere in the world explicitly targeted at the combined personal and business wealth of billionaires. The initiative was drafted with input from Saez and Zucman and has already collected 1.6 million signatures—nearly double the number needed to qualify for the ballot.

    The case is straightforward. California’s roughly 250 billionaire households—0.001% of the state’s families—now hold wealth equal to more than half of California’s entire annual economic output. Yet from 2019 to 2025, while their wealth grew an average of over 15% per year, they paid on average just 0.26% of their wealth annually in state income taxes. The four wealthiest Californians—Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Jensen Huang, and Mark Zuckerberg—paid an effective tax rate of just 0.07% of their wealth. Because they didn’t sell their stock, its rising value was simply never taxed.

    The proposed tax would raise approximately $100 billion—enough to offset the federal health care and social program funding that the Trump administration has stripped from the state. Critics warn that billionaires will flee to Nevada or Florida, but Saez and Zucman have done the math: even if every single California billionaire departed, it would take 25 years for the resulting loss in tax revenue to exceed the one-time haul from the wealth tax. Washington state has already passed a millionaires’ tax, and New York City’s mayor is proposing a 2% levy on residents earning over $1 million—California is widening a door that other states can walk through.

    The Momentum in Washington

    While private wealth has been concentrating for some time, the policies of the Trump administration have dramatized the dynamics. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has done the unglamorous work of actually following the money—and its findings are striking. All but the richest 5% of Americans are paying higher taxes on average than they did last year. 

    Elected officials are taking notice. The 118th and 119th Congresses have seen a cluster of Democratic-sponsored bills targeting capital income and accumulated wealth. None has advanced out of committee under the current Republican majority, but together they represent the most sustained and varied legislative push on this front in a generation. Four proposals stand out:

    Senator Markey’s (D-MA) Equal Tax Act would require millionaires and billionaires who earn most of their income through investments to pay the same tax rates as wage earners and would close loopholes that allow the super-rich to shelter income from taxation entirely. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is a cosponsor, and the Patriotic Millionaires have energetically lobbied for it.

    The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act of 2026, sponsored by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Brendan Boyle (D-PA) with more than 45 cosponsors, would impose an annual 2% tax on the net worth of households and trusts exceeding $50 million, with an additional 1% surtax on wealth above $1 billion. To discourage tax avoidance through expatriation, it includes a 40% exit tax on any U.S. resident worth more than $50 million who renounces citizenship.

    The Billionaire Minimum Income Tax Act, promoted by Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Don Beyer (D-VA) would require households with a net worth exceeding $100 million to pay a minimum annual 25% tax rate on their full income—including unrealized capital gains. Under the current law, gains on assets that are never sold are simply never taxed; this bill closes that gap.

    The ROBINHOOD Act—introduced by Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY), a multimillionaire who acknowledged the bill would raise his own taxes—targets the “buy, borrow, die” strategy directly, imposing a 20% excise tax on loans and lines of credit backed by capital assets such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. It is the most targeted legislative response yet to the borrowing-instead-of-selling loophole described above.

    Crossing the Divide

    A majority of working-class Trump supporters may already agree with the core of this agenda. Research suggests that more than half—53%—of white working-class Americans, a core MAGA constituency, believe the best way to grow the economy is to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and businesses and invest in education and infrastructure. A 2025 poll by The Working Class Project found that working-class voters overwhelmingly believe the GOP is looking out for the wealthy, billionaires, and big corporations—not them.

    Researchers who study the MAGA coalition identify a significant segment they call “Anti-Elites”—voters who are genuinely suspicious of concentrated power, supportive of economic redistribution, and persuadable on tax policy. Both the California initiative and the national legislative push offer a rare opportunity to speak to these voters on their own terms. Why should a nurse or a truck driver pay a higher effective tax rate on their income than Mark Zuckerberg pays on his? Why should billionaires be able to borrow billions against untaxed stock gains while working families lose Medicaid?

    Even millionaires stand to gain from a more sustainable economic environment. Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, is refreshingly candid about his motives: “Millionaires like me want less inequality because we and our families will be better off in a society with less economic disparity. I’m not any more altruistic than the next person—I’m just greedy for a different kind of country.”

    Now there’s a form of greed that might actually do some good. The California ballot initiative, the cluster of bills in Congress, and the polling that reveals some political realignment—these are not isolated developments. They are pieces of a gathering challenge to four decades of upward redistribution. It might even be a gathering storm.


    This article was originally published by Dollars & Sense; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.
    avatar

    Nancy Folbre is a Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and an associate editor of the journal Feminist Economics. She is the author of Greed, Lust, and Gender: A History of Economic Ideas (Oxford University Press).