Showing posts sorted by date for query TARIFFS ARE A TAX. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query TARIFFS ARE A TAX. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, April 18, 2026

 

Spain's Sánchez builds anti-Trump coalition looking for political lifeline at home

Leaders gather in Barcelona for conference of global progressives
Copyright Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

By Maria Tadeo from Barcelona
Published on 

Spanish PM led a progressive conference in Barcelona bringing together world leaders opposing MAGA politics, as Brazil's Lula lashed out at warlords and tech billionaires. "They're destroying democracy, workers and nature."

Pedro Sánchez rallied global leaders in Barcelona this weekend at a two-day convention billed as the “progressive CPAC”, crowning himself leader of the international left while grappling with mounting challenges at home.

The Spanish leader warned of an international “reactionary wave” fuelling hate speech, sexism, war and division, without explicitly naming US President Donald Trump.

"It doesn't matter how much they scream, or how many lies they spread," Sánchez said in a speech on Saturday. "The time for the reactionary, ultra-right has come to an end."

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva echoed the remarks, criticising those “who call themselves patriots but put their sovereignty up for sale and call for sanctions”.

Chants of “No to war” could be heard at the Fira auditorium in Barcelona.

The guest list included South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. All three have clashed with US President Donald Trump over tariffs and migration, while South Africa has also faced allegations of “anti-white” racism — claims echoed by tech billionaire Elon Musk.

A European delegation included German Vice-Chancellor Lars Klingbeil, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, Italy’s opposition leader Elly Schlein, and Belgian politician Paul Magnette. Tax-the-rich economist Gabriel Zucman was also in attendance.

European Council President António Costa cancelled at the last minute, citing personal reasons, and skipped a gathering perhaps considered too political for his role.

Mexico's Sheinbaum participated in an event about protecting democracies but did not join the more political rally on Saturday. A US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is under review by the Trump administration and delicate talks about terms are ongoing.

Progressive CPAC to counter global MAGA

Sánchez said the Barcelona conference — unofficially billed as a left-wing answer to the conservative gathering CPAC — would serve to unite “progressive forces” under a single banner. A source involved in the preparations told Euronews that Brazil had asked Spain to move the event earlier to spring, with April ultimately chosen as the date.

While none of the leaders mentioned US President Donald Trump by name, references to the American leader surfaced repeatedly, alongside criticism of his policies. From tariffs to the war in Iran, officials called for a progressive response to "a reactionary wave."

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who ran alongside Hillary Clinton in her failed presidential bid against Donald Trump, addressed a large crowd on Saturday during the inaugural Global Progressive Mobilisation, describing Trump as “trigger-happy” with no actual plan.

Walz denounced a seemingly authoritative drift under the Trump, suggesting "we need to call that what it is. That's fascism. Or at least it's fascist curious as they would be."

Brazil's president Lula joined in the criticism of the war in Iran, and greeted Spain's decision to deny access to US forces to use Spanish military bases to strike Iran.

"I want to salute friend, Pedro Sánchez, for having the courage (to say no)," Lula added.

A difficult week for Sánchez at home

By often taking an independent stance - from Gaza to the war in Iran - the Spanish prime minister has captured a global audience, leading a bloc of left-wing leaders.

Euronews first reported about plans to organise a convention for socialist parties and the international left in March.

Euronews also reported that Sánchez sought to capitalise on public discontent over the war in Iran and the unpopularity of Trump to boost his international profile.

His stance has earned him applause, but also criticism from the White House.

Trump has repeatedly said he “wants nothing to do with Spain” and has criticised Sánchez as a bad leader who is “not paying” his fair share for NATO protection. He also threatened to impose a full trade blockade, although no measures have been announced.

The convention wraps a difficult week for the Spanish prime minister after his wife, Begoña Gómez, was charged with corruption and is set to face trial following a two-year investigation. The couple have denied any wrongdoing.

Sources close to Sánchez speaking to Euronews describe the case as politically motivated and expect Gómez to be acquitted.


Sánchez, Lula Lead ‘Work for Peace’ and Equality at Gathering of Global Progressive Leaders in Spain


“While others open wounds, we want to mend them and cure them,” said Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.



Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez (R) review the troops during a welcoming ceremony upon the Brazilian president’s visit at the Palacio de Pedralbes in Barcelona on April 17, 2026.
(Photo by Oscar Del Pozo/AFP via Getty Images)


Julia Conley
Apr 17, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Arriving in Spain on Friday for a two-day visit that will center on a gathering of progressive leaders from more than 100 political parties across five continents, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva emphasized that the summit was not “an anti-Trump meeting.”

But the contrast between US President Donald Trump’s violent foreign and domestic policies and the international meeting, which will focus on wage inequality and electoral strategy for progressives, was unmistakable as Spanish President Pedro Sánchez opened the gathering at a press conference in Barcelona on Friday.


Spanish PM Says Ceasefires ‘Always Good News,’ But Trump Deserves No Praise



“We want to double our efforts to work for peace and for a reinforced multilateral order. While others open wounds, we want to mend them and cure them,” said Sánchez.

Da Silva—who is commonly called Lula—and Sánchez, as well as other leaders who will be attending the weekend event, have spoken out forcefully against Trump’s policies and the rise of the far right in the US, Germany, Italy, and other European countries.

Sánchez has refused to allow US fighter planes to use Spanish military bases for missions in the US-Israeli war on Iran and closed the country’s airspace to American military aircraft—plus doubled down on his condemnation of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s war even after the US president threatened Spain with a trade embargo.

Lula expressed solidarity with Pope Leo this week after the pontiff denounced the Iran war, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who will also attend the meeting, took aim last month at Trump’s claim that her country is the “epicenter of cartel violence”—blaming the US for the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.

Lula emphasized that the 3,000 attendees of the summit, which will include the IV Meeting in Defense of Democracy as well as a gathering called the Global Progressive Mobilization on Saturday, will “discuss the state of democracy, to see what went wrong and what we have to do to repair it.”

The Brazilian president added that “Brazil and Spain are side by side in the trenches together.”

“We are an example that it is possible to find solutions to problems without giving into the empty promises of extremism,” said Lula. “Democracy must go beyond just voting and bring real benefits to people’s lives.”

Sánchez added that “in a world that doubts and fragments, Spain and Brazil open a new chapter convinced that our countries have something the world needs: the strength to build bridges where others raise walls.”



The Global Progressive Mobilization meeting will include roundtables dedicated to discussing economic inequality and other issues at a time when, as one report showed earlier this month, the richest 0.1% of people on the planet are stashing more than $2.8 trillion in tax havens—more than the wealth owned by the entire bottom 50% of humanity.

The economic hardships of working people have only been exacerbated by the war on Iran, which has sent global energy prices soaring.

US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is the only federal US official planning to attend the gathering, while New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani—who has swiftly taken steps toward enacting a universal childcare program and announced a plan to tax second homes valued at over $5 million since taking office in January, is scheduled to participate virtually.

Also on Saturday, Lula and Sánchez will host the IV Meeting in Defense of Democracy, a summit first held in 2024 with the aim of combating “extremism, polarization, and misinformation.”

European Council President António Costa, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and leaders from Albania, Ghana, and Lithuania are among those attending the meeting on democracy.

Lula said the large number of attendees is evidence that progressive governments are winning more influence around the world despite the rise of authoritarian political parties.

“Our flock is growing. We must give hope to the world,” said Lula. “Otherwise, what happened with [Nazi leader Adolf] Hitler is going to happen.”

Economist Gabriel Zucman, who joined Mamdani this week in publishing an op-ed calling for an end to regressive tax systems and highlighting a proposal for a 2% tax on the wealth of those with more than €100 million, or $117 million, expressed hope that the global left is amassing power by building a cooperative international movement.

“The good news is that, from Zohran Mamdani and [Congresswoman] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York to Pedro Sánchez in Spain, from Lula in Brazil to [Green Party Leader] Zack Polanski in the UK, we may be seeing the early signs of a new cross-border alliance taking shape against global oligarchy,” said Zucman. “And I have no doubt that in this fight—the defining battle of the 21st century—democracy will prevail. See you in Barcelona this weekend to press ahead!”



President Ramaphosa Champions Trade, Democracy And Fair Multilateralism At Spain–South Africa Business Forum


President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Spain–South Africa Business Forum. 
Photo Credit: SA News


April 18, 2026 
By SA News


President Cyril Ramaphosa has called for deeper trade ties, strengthened democratic partnerships and a more equitable multilateral system at the Spain–South Africa Business Forum during his working visit to the Kingdom of Spain.

Addressing delegates at the Business Forum on Friday, President Ramaphosa said the visit underscores the shared commitment between the two nations to build a modern, dynamic and mutually beneficial economic relationship.

“This visit reflects the strength of our longstanding partnership and our shared commitment to building a modern, dynamic and mutually beneficial economic relationship,” he said.

Framing his address around trade expansion, democratic values and the importance of multilateral cooperation, the President highlighted the steady growth in economic ties between the two countries.

“In 2025, total trade between South Africa and Spain reached approximately 2.8 billion Euros. South Africa’s exports to Spain reached 1.3 billion Euros, a 10 percent increase over the previous year.


“This makes Spain our fastest-growing major trading partner within the European Union,” the President said.

He emphasised that the relationship between the two economies is complementary rather than competitive.

“Our countries do not compete. We complement each other, demonstrating how strategic partnerships can strengthen global value chains,” he said.

President Ramaphosa noted that more than 150 Spanish companies operate in South Africa, supporting over 20 000 jobs across sectors including renewable energy, infrastructure, technology and tourism.

He further pointed to Spain’s investment of over 2.1 billion Euros in South Africa’s just energy transition as a strong signal of confidence.

“It is a statement of confidence not merely in our economy, but in our future,” he said.
Diversifying trade and strengthening value chains

While acknowledging the strength of bilateral trade, the President cautioned that the relationship remains concentrated in a narrow range of exports.

“Even though our trade relationship is strong, it remains structurally imbalanced. It is concentrated in a narrow range of products,” the President said.

He said diversification is critical to building resilience, particularly as motor vehicles for the transport of goods account for nearly half of South Africa’s exports to Spain.

President Ramaphosa identified critical minerals, green industrialisation and advanced manufacturing as key areas for future cooperation, especially as the global economy transitions to cleaner energy.

“South Africa holds the world’s largest reserves of platinum group metals. These critical minerals sit at the heart of hydrogen fuel cell technology, clean energy systems and the future of electric mobility,” President Ramaphosa said.

He said Spain’s growing leadership in the hydrogen economy presents an opportunity for alignment.

“South Africa brings the resource base. Spain brings technological capability, investment and market access. Together, this creates the foundation for a new kind of partnership, a collaboration across the value chains of the future,” he said.
Call for fair global rules and inclusive multilateralism

Placing the discussion within a broader global context, the President stressed the importance of fair and inclusive rules in international trade and climate governance.

“As we expand trade, we must ensure that the rules governing global commerce are fair and support development,” President Ramaphosa said.

He cautioned that emerging regulatory measures, such as the European Union’s carbon border policies, should not disadvantage developing economies.


“But new regulatory frameworks, including the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, must not become instruments that inadvertently punish developing economies for emissions they did not historically cause,” he said.

While reaffirming South Africa’s commitment to climate action, he called for stronger support mechanisms within global frameworks.

“We are not opposed to the principle of carbon accountability. What we ask is that climate measures be accompanied by the necessary climate finance, technology transfer and transitional arrangements that the Paris Agreement and successive COP commitments have promised,” the President said.
Investment, industrial cooperation and shared prosperity

The President used the platform to position South Africa as an attractive investment destination, highlighting a pipeline of 85 projects valued at over 62 billion Euros across key sectors such as energy, infrastructure, digital connectivity and pharmaceuticals.

“Our message to every Spanish company in this room is that South Africa is open for business,” he said.

He encouraged Spanish firms to partner with South Africa as long-term collaborators in building industries that support inclusive growth.

“We invite you to partner with us not only as investors, but as long-term industrial partners, as co-builders of industries that will serve our people and yours for generations,” President Ramaphosa said.

Concluding his address, President Ramaphosa underscored the broader significance of the partnership between the two nations.

“We have an opportunity to connect European technological strength with African growth. We have an opportunity to build supply chains that are resilient, sustainable and inclusive,” he said.


He added that such cooperation can drive shared prosperity across both regions.

“Most importantly, we have an opportunity to create prosperity that is genuinely shared in Madrid and in Johannesburg, in Seville and in Durban,” the President said.

The President arrived in Spain on Thursday for a Working Visit that runs until 18 April, where he is participating in the In Defence of Democracy Initiative and engaging with political and business leaders to reinforce bilateral relations between South Africa and Spain.

The President is also scheduled to have an audience with King Felipe VI at the Zarzuela Royal Palace today.

On Saturday, he will be in Barcelona where he is scheduled to hold a bilateral meeting with President Pedro Sánchez at the Fira de Barcelona, before delivering remarks at the plenary session on Extremism and Inequality.

The President is accompanied by the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, and the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Parks Tau.




SA News

Government Communication and Information System (GCIS) established the SA Government News Agency to enable all media locally and abroad to have easy and fast access to fresh government information, news and current affairs at no cost.



Trump turmoil sees Spain’s Sanchez emerge as progressive star


By AFP
April 15, 2026


Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez speaks during a press conference in Beijing on April 14, 2026 - Copyright AFP Delil SOULEIMAN


Imran Marashli

Spain’s Pedro Sanchez hosts a summit of world progressives this week with greater global clout as turbulent relations with US President Donald Trump bolster his image as a left-wing hero.

Clashes with Trump, virulent criticism of Israel and a championing of immigration have set the Socialist prime minister apart in Europe, which has in the last years tilted to the right.

The latest episode was his staunch opposition to the US-Israeli war on Iran, with Trump threatening trade retaliation after Spain denied the use of its bases.

Sanchez broke with NATO allies last year by refusing to agree to Trump’s demand that alliance members hike defence spending to five percent of GDP.

He is also the highest-profile Western leader to call Israel’s devastating two-year war against Hamas in Gaza a “genocide”.

For Ignacio Molina, a senior fellow at Madrid’s Elcano Royal Institute, Sanchez has earned Spain recognition for a “coherent” stance in the Global South, particularly in the Arab world and Latin America.

“It works out well for the government, because it has gained a lot of leadership, influence and presence in many countries,” Molina told AFP.

Of the countries adopting a similar stance, Spain is the “most relevant” because others are not in NATO, such as Ireland, or outside the European Union, for example Norway, he added, citing nations who also recognised a Palestinian state in 2024.

“Spain has achieved a weight among the European Union’s big countries that it did not have before,” agreed Joan Botella, a political science professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona.



– ‘Trump’s nemesis’ –



Sanchez has gained attention in international media, penning articles for The New York Times and Le Monde diplomatique.

“Pedro Sanchez has become the standard-bearer for Western political opposition to the US president,” The Wall Street Journal wrote in March, while the Financial Times called the Socialist “Trump’s nemesis in Europe”.

Bathing in the new-found limelight, the current president of the Socialist International will host leading leftist figures at the two-day Global Progressive Mobilisation beginning in Barcelona on Friday.

Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum are due to attend alongside 400 mayors and more than 100 parties.

Sanchez and Lula will deliver the keynote address on Saturday at the gathering, which organisers say aims to rally progressives in times of turmoil marked by the rise of the far right.

Progressives must “unite, tell citizens that we belong to something that goes beyond domestic politics, our borders — and that is having a positive, humanist outlook,” Sanchez said on Tuesday during his fourth visit to China in as many years.

The rise of Sanchez’s stock abroad contrasts with his polarising image at home.

He has never commanded a parliamentary majority since taking office in 2018 and is under pressure from corruption investigations into relatives and former close political allies.



– ‘Absorb left-wing vote’ –



Botella said Sanchez was “playing the foreign policy card hard, because it’s an area he’s comfortable in, and in which a majority of Spanish public opinion is favourable to him”.

More than 68 percent of Spaniards opposed the war on Iran, including voters of the conservative main opposition Popular Party (PP), according to a March poll published in El Pais newspaper.

“Spaniards have a certain inferiority complex when they go out into the wider world. In that sense, the profile that Sanchez’s figure has acquired satisfies many people beyond his electoral base,” Botella told AFP.

On the other hand, the PP says he has used foreign policy exclusively for domestic purposes, to rally fractious left-wing forces and distract attention from the negative headlines.

Other Western leaders have preferred to handle Trump with tact on trade, defence and foreign policy.

Sanchez “is trying to use this image of a progressive leader, opposed to Trump” to “strengthen his political position” and “absorb the left-wing vote”, said Juan Tovar Ruiz, a professor of international relations at the University of Burgos.

“That has consequences at European level. Right now, I think Spain is in a clearly minority position,” he warned.

For Molina, Sanchez’s stance risked alienating some traditional allies governed by the right, such as Germany and Italy, but “in the end, what is gained is rather more than what may be lost.”

Friday, April 17, 2026

On US Tax Day, Socially Conscious Millionaires Say Make Us Pay More!

“We cannot hand over the keys to our democracy to people who are unwilling to address the economic injustices that exist today,” said Scott Ellis of the Patriotic Millionaires.

Scott Ellis of the Patriotic Millionaires joined other advocates and lawmakers for a rally calling to tax the rich on April 15, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by the Patriotic Millionaires/Bluesky)


Jessica Corbett
Apr 15, 2026

“Millionaires like me who want a rich, stable, free country demand an economy that ensures it. That begins with commonsense revenue raisers and tax reforms that stop the accumulation of oligarchic concentrations of wealth.”

That’s what Scott Ellis of the Patriotic Millionaire said Wednesday—Tax Day in the United States—as he gathered with members of various organizations, plus Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as well as Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va,), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), for a “tax the rich” rally on Capitol Hill.



‘The Current Tax Code Is Rigged,’ Plus 6.2 Trillion Other Reasons to Tax America’s Ultrarich

‘Taxing Billionaires Is Not Radical’: Mamdani Joins Top Economists to Denounce ‘Rigged’ US Tax System

“While I’ve seen examples of the good that wealth can do, I have also seen all the ways it can lead to irreparable harm to our personal, political, moral, and societal well-being,” said Ellis. “There is a level of wealth beyond which it threatens the health and even the existence of our democracy and our economy. We cannot hand over the keys to our democracy to people who are unwilling to address the economic injustices that exist today.”



Ellis said that he joined the lawmakers and others gathered “to urge our government leaders to deal with the money problem in our country head-on with solutions like those found in the Patriotic Millionaires’ MONEY Agenda platform. Every time inequality reaches extraordinary levels, we create a vulnerability to authoritarianism where money becomes power. If we want to unrig our economy, we need a bold, surprisingly simple economic vision.”

So far, two bills tied to the MONEY Agenda have been introduced in Congress: the Equal Tax Act, sponsored by Markey and Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), and the Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act, spearheaded by Van Hollen and Beyer.

“Teachers, nurses, and millions [of] working people are paying more while getting less because our tax code is rigged to reward wealth over work,” Markey said in a statement. “The Equal Tax Act brings fairness to our tax code by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay taxes on investment income the same way working people pay taxes. On Tax Day, I’m proud to work with Congresswoman Ramirez to fight for legislation that has the wealthy pay their fair share, and rewards work every bit as much as wealth.”

Van Hollen, meanwhile, said Wednesday that “my Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act creates a fairer system that ensures those who are stretching to make ends meet can keep more of what they earn, while asking the well-off to pitch in more. It’s long past time that we rebalanced our tax code to put working people first—and promote greater opportunity and shared prosperity for all.”



Deluzio used the “Tax the Rich, Make Life Affordable” rally to call out the agenda of elected Republicans—who control the White House and both chambers of Congress—and promote another bill led by Jayapal, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

“Our government has a fiscal recklessness problem, and it looks like this: the richest people in the history of Earth facing lower tax rates than Americans who earn a paycheck,” said Deluzio. “Yet that is the Republican plan—jack up the national debt and slash healthcare and more for the American people to pay for these huge tax giveaways to corporations and the ultrarich. We need a vastly different approach, like passing the Ultra-Millionaires Tax to get some sanity back into our tax system.”

To illustrate just how broken the current system is, EJ Juárez, executive director of State Innovation Exchange, noted that “in 2025 alone, billionaire wealth grew 22%—from $6.7 trillion to $8.2 trillion—while working families see the cost of living go up, and wages too low. That is why SiX is working alongside state legislators across the country to lead the way.”

“Across all 50 states, lawmakers are advancing bold solutions to make the ultrawealthy pay what they owe, close corporate loopholes, and build tax systems that actually lower costs and empower working families,” Juárez said, nodding to initiatives in places such as California and Washington state. “Together, states are proving a better future is possible.”

Beyond Washington, DC, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani partnered with Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz and Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman for a Tax Day op-ed calling out the “rigged” US tax code.

“The idea that billionaires should pay higher tax rates than working people is not radical,” the trio wrote for The Guardian. “What is radical is allowing a system where extreme wealth exists alongside widespread hardship—and where those billionaires can in effect opt out of contributing to the society that made their success possible.”



‘Taxing Billionaires Is Not Radical’: Mamdani Joins Top Economists to Denounce ‘Rigged’ US Tax System

While most Americans are paying more in taxes this year, the wealthiest 1% are saving an average of $9,000 thanks to Trump’s tax legislation.



New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers an address to the crowd at his 100 Days Rally at the Knockdown Center in New York on April 12, 2026.
(Photo by Jason Alpert-Wisnia/Hans Lucas/AFP via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Apr 15, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is using Tax Day to remind Americans that the nation’s tax code is “rigged” to protect the superrich while making the case for a more equitable system.

In a Guardian op-ed co-written with Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz and Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman, New York’s democratic socialist mayor lamented that the world is living with greater wealth inequality than ever before, with just 0.0001% of the global population holding the equivalent of 16% of global wealth—more than the bottom half of humanity.

Mamdani and the economists attributed the global surge in inequality in large part to America’s “regressive” tax system, which has grown dramatically more favorable to the wealthy over the past half-century.



Compared to 1960, when the 400 richest Americans paid roughly half their incomes in taxes, they now pay about 24%—helped by a combination of lower marginal tax rates and loopholes that allow billionaires and corporations to shield their wealth and effectively pay a smaller share of their incomes than everyone else.


This inequality was further exacerbated by the massive GOP tax law signed by President Donald Trump last year, which a report by Americans for Tax Fairness found gave the wealthiest 1% of households an average tax break of $9,000.

While the Trump administration promised earlier this year that the average American family would receive a $1,000 tax refund from the legislation, Corey Husak, director of tax policy at the Center for American Progress, found that the average refund was just $346 higher than the previous year—and that even that figure was heavily inflated by the benefits accrued by the richest earners.

Meanwhile, those gains were more than wiped out by the added cost of Trump’s tariffs and the dramatic cuts to the social safety net passed by Republicans, which have led to spiking health insurance costs and thrown millions off Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

“We can disagree about how progressive tax systems should be—the extent to which the rich should pay more tax, relative to their income, than the rest of us,” Mamdani, Stiglitz, and Zucman wrote. “But there is no justification for a regressive system in which the superrich contribute less than the rest of us. This is how inequality is deepened and sustained.”



The authors praised efforts in other countries to combat rising inequality. One initiative they highlighted was a 2% tax on the wealth of those with more than €100 million ($117 million), a proposal championed by Zucman. A version of the measure was passed last year by France’s National Assembly but stalled in the Senate after being blocked by centrist and right-wing parties.

But the initiative still has momentum around the world. This weekend, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will meet with the leaders of several other nations, including Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa, to discuss adopting similar taxes.

Meanwhile, in the US, a proposed ballot initiative for a one-time 5% billionaire tax in California—aimed at recouping losses from Trump’s Medicaid cuts—appears overwhelmingly popular, with around two-thirds support according to a poll last month, despite aggressive lobbying by billionaires to stop the measure.

Mamdani has pushed for a similar measure in New York City to help balance the city budget and fund universal childcare and affordable housing.

On Wednesday, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that she was backing a so-called “pied-à-terre tax,” which applies a surcharge to anyone with a second home valued over $5 million in New York City. Mamdani’s office has estimated that it will raise $500 million annually.



In early 2026, consumer prices and housing costs have soared far faster than wages can match. A January poll from KFF found that 82% of adults said their overall cost of living had increased over the past year, with around two-thirds saying they worried about affording healthcare for themselves and their families, and nearly a quarter saying they were worried about affording food and rent.

In response to this economic precarity, more than 62% of Americans said in a January YouGov survey that they felt billionaires are taxed too little, and more than half said that wealth inequality is a problem.

“The idea that billionaires should pay higher tax rates than working people is not radical,” the authors of the Guardian op-ed said. “What is radical is allowing a system where extreme wealth exists alongside widespread hardship—and where those billionaires can in effect opt out of contributing to the society that made their success possible.”


Thursday, April 16, 2026

There Is Nothing New About Trump’s Economic Populism – OpEd


Trump’s policies are not guided by a coherent philosophy; they form a transactional strategy that draws on tactics employed by earlier Republican leaders. All this makes clear that such interventionism is a legacy of the GOP itself—rather than an aberration within the American right—as many analysts wrongly claim.


April 16, 2026 
By MISES
By Lorenzo Cianti


The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision invalidating Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs, followed almost immediately by the President’s response reinstating and increasing them, reminds us once again how rapidly American politics evolves. Yet, in some cases, it pays to recognize that certain underlying threads in government policy remain constant, regardless of the period or the leaders in charge.

Too often, so-called “experts” weigh in on current events without any real command of economic history. Consider the outrage among prominent Republicans over Trump’s bombastic campaign promises and what his detractors see as troubling moves after returning to office.

In a December 2025 op-ed for The New York Times, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney contended that tariffs “burden lower- and middle-income families,” pointing to analyses showing they act as a regressive tax that hits the poorest Americans hardest. Still, in the same piece, he echoed progressive rhetoric by calling for higher taxes on the rich, himself included. We have no intention of defending Trump here, but one neglected aspect deserves attention.

For decades, a persistent myth has held that the Reagan-era GOP heralded an age of unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, nudging the entire ideological spectrum toward pro-free trade, business-friendly positions. It thus became natural to portray Trump as an outlier in the Republican fold—an irritating, heterodox chapter in the story of a party that, on the surface at least, has long championed individual liberty and small government. The truth, however, is far more nuanced than the dominant narrative would have us believe.

To debunk this simplistic notion, we must dissect the most salient aspects of Trump’s platform and compare them with the GOP’s historical record.

Protectionism


Protectionism stands as the policy Trump touts most proudly, so much so that he has proclaimed himself “Tariff Man.” He went further still, calling “tariff” the most beautiful word in the English language.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Republican Party emerged in the mid-1850s by inheriting Henry Clay’s “American System,” which formed the cornerstone of the Whigs’ agenda: leveraging the federal government to stabilize finance, protect and foster domestic industry, and build national infrastructure.

Whigs and early Republicans both favored higher tariffs not only to generate federal revenue, but also to safeguard and promote US manufacturers, with the goal of developing a more diversified, industrializing economy. As Lew Rockwell aptly noted in the introduction to Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto:


The Civil War, in addition to its unprecedented bloodshed and devastation, was used by the triumphal and virtually one–party Republican regime to drive through its statist, formerly Whig, program: national governmental power, protective tariff, subsidies to big business, inflationary paper money, resumed control of the federal government over banking, large–scale internal improvements, high excise taxes, and, during the war, conscription and an income tax.

The US House of Representatives passed the Morrill Tariff on the eve of Lincoln’s presidency. The measure sharply raised tariff rates on dutiable imports and widened the protectionist scope of federal policy. A subsequent adjustment soon pushed rates even higher.

The 1890 McKinley Tariff, named after then-Representative William McKinley, established the highest average tariff level in US history up to that time, with some rates surpassing 100 percent. The Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, enacted under Warren Harding, produced substantial increases in a decade defined by isolationism and protectionist sentiment.

Yet it was the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, signed into law by Herbert Hoover, that delivered the most dramatic escalation of duties in American history to that point. This infamous measure lifted average tariff rates to approximately 60 percent—up from the Fordney-McCumber level of 38 percent—in an effort to shield domestic employment. The result was a cascade of retaliatory tariffs from trading partners around the world.


The Smoot-Hawley Act was a classic example of beggar–thy–neighbor policy, in which one country pursues its own national advantage at the direct expense of others. This zero-sum logic parallels the rationale behind Trump’s tariffs, as the following chart illustrates:



Price Controls

On December 19, 2025, Trump announced nine new agreements with major pharmaceutical companies to lower prescription drug prices for American patients, bringing them in line with the lowest prices paid in other developed countries (known as most-favored-nation, or MFN, pricing). These voluntary deals lower costs for Medicaid programs and certain direct–to–consumer sales, building on earlier MFN efforts from his administration.

The best-known historical precedent came on August 15, 1971, when Richard Nixon declared a 90-day freeze on wages and prices as part of his New Economic Policy. That move aimed to combat runaway inflation and avert a currency crisis amid the collapse of the Bretton Woods system.

It was the first peacetime imposition of mandatory wage and price controls in US history, initially winning broad public support but then proving disastrous. Driven by stagflation and fears of a gold drain after the dollar’s convertibility ended, the inflation rate had climbed above 12 percent by 1974.

The program evolved through multiple phases, including the establishment of the Pay Board and Price Commission to oversee allowable increases. Artificially-suppressed prices quickly led to widespread shortages, most notably in gasoline and steel, with long lines at pumps and rationing conditions. Businesses, unable to cover costs, reduced output, cut quality, or were forced to shut down.

The controls disrupted market signals, prevented economic calculation, and failed to curb long–term inflation, contributing to distortions that lingered for years. Why should we believe similar interventions today would produce different results?


Tax Cuts

Through the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), Trump’s first term delivered the most significant federal tax overhaul since the 1980s.

This mirrors Ronald Reagan’s 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act—which phased in a 25 percent across-the-board cut in individual rates (top marginal from 70 percent to 50 percent), accelerated depreciation, and inflation indexing—and the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which simplified brackets and dropped the top rate to 28 percent, but left overall revenue roughly intact due to offsets.

As Rothbard asserted in his critique of Reaganomics, these cuts were illusory and temporary in practice, offset by bracket creep, rising payroll taxes, stealth increases, and massive spending growth that ballooned the federal deficit without structural restraint. Although any tax cut should be welcome, in both cases, these were easily reversible measures that drove deficits higher because they were not accompanied by cuts to public spending and government departments.

Government Spending


The Republican embrace of expansive government spending under the banner of “compassionate conservatism” reached new heights during George W. Bush’s presidency.

In 2003, Bush signed Medicare Part D—a massive new entitlement program providing prescription drug benefits to seniors—with initial costs estimated at $400 billion over ten years, later revised upward to $534 billion. The voluntary benefit, administered through private insurers, represented a major expansion of federal involvement in healthcare, adding trillions to long-term liabilities without corresponding offsets.

Similarly, in October 2008, Bush enacted the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, authorizing $700 billion (then capped at $475 billion) to bail out financial institutions by purchasing troubled assets, ultimately disbursing $443 billion with a net cost of $31 billion after recoveries.

These interventions underscored the GOP’s willingness to deploy federal resources during crises and foreshadow Trump’s own big-spending tendencies. Bush’s 2008 Economic Stimulus Act also provided $152 billion in rebate checks to over 130 million households, aimed at boosting spending amid the financial crisis.

That approach finds a counterpart in Trump’s 2020 CARES Act—a $2 trillion package that included $1,200 direct payments per adult as part of broader relief, though on a vastly larger scale (12 percent of GDP in 2020 versus 1 percent in 2008). Both initiatives sought rapid economic stimulus but prioritized short-term aid over fiscal restraint.

Conclusion

Trump’s policies are not guided by a coherent philosophy; they form a transactional strategy that draws on tactics employed by earlier Republican leaders. They are best understood as a somewhat disorganized, contradictory blend of neo-mercantilism, national populism, and old-school protectionism, rooted in the Whig program and traditional Republicanism.

Trumpism combines higher tariffs abroad with “fewer regulations” at home, folding in Nixon’s price controls, Reagan’s tax cuts, and Bush’s expansionary policies. All this makes clear that such interventionism is a legacy of the GOP itself—rather than an aberration within the American right—as many analysts wrongly claim.


About the author:
 Lorenzo Cianti is a student of Political Science and International Relations at Roma Tre University. Passionate about Austrian Economics and political philosophy, he is a regular contributor to L’Opinione delle Libertà—Italy’s oldest continuously published newspaper—and to the online magazine Atlantico Quotidiano. He was a finalist in the 2026 Kenneth Garschina Undergraduate Student Essay Contest for the essay “The Chainsaw Revolution: Javier Milei’s Rothbardian Assault on Argentine Collectivism.”


Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute

The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, the Mises Institute seeks a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. The Mises Institute encourages critical historical research, and stands against political correctness.

Wednesday, April 15, 2026

These Proposals Would Make Life Better for Millions of People—And Most Americans Support Them

“That the US Congress is not debating or introducing bills to address the issues presented here represents a breakdown of democracy,” said an economic justice think tank.



Sister Diane Smith, with CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice), joins The Fair Games Coalition to announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in Los Angeles on January 14, 2026.
(Photo by Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Apr 13, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

A new report by an economic think tank takes aim at the broadly accepted idea that Americans are divided on the major issues affecting millions of people every day—the question of how to ensure everyone can get the healthcare they need without going bankrupt, how the government can ensure working people make enough money to live, and whether the US should take more aggressive climate action.

As it turns out, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) suggested Monday, there’s far more agreement on those and more issues across the political spectrum than the corporate media and establishment politicians from both sides of the aisle would have the public believe.

Lawmakers who push for good, fair-paying jobs for all workers; raising the chronically stagnant federal minimum wage; guaranteeing healthcare for all Americans; clean energy investments; and ending the influence of corporations and billionaires on US elections would not be advocating for policies that are just popular on the left, the report says, but would actually be promoting a “Majority Agenda.”

“It may feel like Americans agree on nothing right now, but recent polling tells a different story,” said CEPR on social media. “From raising the minimum wage and strengthening Social Security to affordable housing and healthcare reform, these progressive policies are broadly popular despite the political establishment continuing to ignore them.”

The group pointed to one 2024 poll by the American Communities Project that showed more than 60% of Americans agreed that the economy “is rigged to advantage the rich and the powerful,” while 62% disagreed with the idea of cutting social programs to lower taxes.

Another 2024 poll by The Associated Press found that 91% of Americans supported equal protection under the law and 88% supported the right to privacy, while a 2020 poll by the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard Kennedy School revealed that 89% of Americans expressed strong support for affordable healthcare, 85% felt people have the right to a job, and 93% thought the right to clean air and water is essential.

Analyzing those surveys and other data, CEPR advised policymakers to consider the Majority Agenda as a “roadmap” to passing policies that large majorities of Americans view as major priorities to improve their quality of life.

The report is divided into three sections: Good Jobs, Strong Infrastructure, and Fair Play.

To push for fair, well-paying employment, said CEPR, lawmakers should support policies including:Increasing unionization‚ supported by 68% of Americans in one recent poll, through the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, cracking down on retaliation against union members, and repealing or reforming the Taft-Hartley Act;
Raising the $7.25 federal minimum wage, supported by 86% of Americans; and
Setting a floor for paid time off from work by strengthening the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The section on strengthening US “infrastructure” looks beyond the traditional definition of the term regarding physical infrastructure projects, pushing for stronger policies that can help working people thrive by ensuring their healthcare, housing, and other basic needs are met.

A stronger infrastructure, said CEPR, would include:Guaranteed healthcare for everyone in the US through the passage of the Medicare for All Act, which has been introduced in the US House and Senate numerous times, and a corporate practice of medicine law to stop the corporatization of healthcare;
A reversal of the trend of federal housing policy directing “too much funding to the wealthy and too little for everyone else,” by ending federal restrictions on the creation of new federal public housing instead of investing in mortgage interest deductions for wealthy homeowners and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, whose benefits are greater for wealthy investors than for low-income renters; and
An investment in clean energy by reinstating Biden-era regulations and strengthening the Clean Air Act and other environmental protection laws in order to meet the demands of 59% of Americans who view the climate crisis as “very or extremely dangerous,” according to a 2021 poll by the University of Chicago.

CEPR pointed to three areas in which lawmakers could increase “fair play” for Americans:Strengthening and supporting Social Security, which Republicans frequently attack as rife with fraud and on the verge of going broke, by diverting some among of general revenue to the program and increasing monthly benefits modestly;
Passing a constitutional amendment to allow the government to regulate campaign fundraising and spending both by campaigns and outside individuals and artificial entities; and
Raising taxes on large businesses and the wealthy, as large majorities of Americans believe government should, and restoring funding to the Internal Revenue Service to ensure proper collection of taxes.

“That the US Congress is not debating or introducing bills to address the issues presented here represents a breakdown of democracy, one that comes at a considerable cost to the betterment of life for large swaths of Americans. At the same time, the access to and influence over our democratic processes by the monied class has upended our system of government, and all too often the tyranny of the wealthy minority has reigned,” reads the CEPR report.

“We hope this report stands as a reminder that even in a fraught political moment,” said CEPR, “there is a range of straightforward, broadly popular policy choices that could improve the lives of millions of people.”

New study reveals what the White House doesn't want you to know about prices


FILE PHOTO: Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell looks at U.S. President Donald Trump holding a document during a tour of the Federal Reserve Board building, which is currently undergoing renovations, in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 24, 2025. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura/File Photo

April 13, 2026 
ALTERNET

President Donald Trump insists the US economy has never done better than under his second term, but a right-leaning magazine just published an article claiming the opposite is true — indisputably so.


“Tariffs implemented last year by President Donald Trump's administration are entirely to blame for the recent surge in prices for consumer and household goods,” wrote Reason's economic policy reporter Eric Boehm on Monday. ”Those tariffs have raised core goods prices by 3.1 percent, according to a new study by a trio of economists at the Federal Reserve. Those higher consumer prices were the result of retailers passing the cost of tariffs along the supply chain.”

As of two months ago, Trump’s tariffs entirely account for the excess inflation of core goods that Americans have felt since the start of his second term.


"Our estimates indicate that tariff effects on prices gradually build over time, with cumulative effects seven months after implementation consistent with our theoretical measures of full dollar-for-dollar pass-through,” the economists wrote. Boehm added that “the study used the personal consumption expenditures price index (PCE), which is published quarterly by the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis and differs in some small ways from the monthly consumer price index published by the Department of Labor.”

“High prices causes real wages to fall, reversing the gains made since last summer in 2025,” former Special Assistant to President Joe Biden on the National Economic Council Mike Konczal wrote earlier this month regarding prices and tariffs under Trump. A former adviser to President Barack Obama, Betsey Stevenson, similarly wrote that "wars mean declining living standards for everyone,” referencing Trump's unprovoked conflicts against Venezuela and Iran.


Trump’s “tariff shock” has especially hit America’s auto industry, with car magazine WardsAuto reporting last month that “General Motors projects a tariff hit of $3.5 to $4.5 billion in 2025. Ford absorbed an $800 million second-quarter blow. Volkswagen is bracing for a €5 billion impact. Cox Automotive estimates the industry has collectively accumulated more than $25 billion in tariff obligations through just the first seven months of the year — roughly $5,200 per imported vehicle. For vehicles built in Mexico, a critical manufacturing hub, the added cost runs to approximately $4,800 per unit, effectively turning the build-in-Mexico business model upside down.”

As Americans continue to struggle economically because of Trump’s tariffs conservatives like Mona Charen of The Bulwark worry that Republicans will lose in future elections because of the economy.

“Voters are rarely able to connect policy to outcomes, but they have done so in the case of tariffs,” Charen wrote in February. “Back in 2024, Americans were about equally divided on the question of trade, with some favoring higher tariffs and roughly similar numbers opting for lower tariffs. Experience has changed their views.”


She concluded Democrats could win if they embrace as their campaign message, "Tariffs bad—full stop.”


Sunday, April 12, 2026

 

U.S. trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff



Published: 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Monday, April 6, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

A U.S. trade court on Friday considered the legality of a 10 global import tax imposed by President Donald Trump, which several states and small businesses say sidesteps a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of his previous tariffs.

A group of 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses sued the Trump administration to stop the new tariffs, which went into effect on Feb. 24.

The hearing is before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Oregon’s lawyer Brian Marshall told the judges they should block the 10% tariffs rather than let them expire on the normal 150-day timeline, to keep Trump from invoking a variety of laws to keep them indefinitely.

“[If] we have a successive series where there’s always tariffs in place, that’s a problem,” Marshall said.

Marshall also said the tariffs were based on archaic authority that was meant to protect the U.S. dollar from sudden depreciation in the 1970s, when dollars could be exchanged for gold reserves held in Fort Knox.

He said that authority was meant to resolve significant “balance-of-payments deficits,” and Trump cannot repurpose it to address routine trade deficits.

Trump has made ​tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy in his second term, claiming sweeping authority to issue tariffs without input from Congress.

The administration has said that global tariffs are a legal and appropriate response to a persistent trade deficit caused by the fact that the U.S. imports more goods than it exports.

“President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country’s balance of payments crisis,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Trump imposed the new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade ​Act of 1974, which authorizes duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days on imports during “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or to prevent imminent depreciation of the dollar.

The states and small businesses argue that the Trade Act’s tariff authority is meant only to address short-term monetary emergencies, and routine trade deficits do not match the economic definition of “balance-of-payments deficits.”

Trump announced the new tariffs on February 20, the same day the Supreme Court handed him a stinging defeat when ⁠it struck down a broad swath of tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that the law did not give him the power he claimed.

No U.S. president before Trump had used the IEEPA or Section 122 to impose tariffs. The two lawsuits do not challenge other Trump tariffs made under more traditional legal authority, such as recent tariffs on steel, aluminum and copper imports.

(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Lisa Shumaker and Franklin Paul)