On August 8, 2026, ICE agents rolled up in black and grey SUV’s to Mary’s home in tiny Cornwall, Vermont, got out, and, over her objection, forced their way on to her property. There they seized two people who were helping to put a new roof on Mary’s home and took them away. Throughout this confrontation, Mary repeatedly demanded that the ICE agents produce a warrant. They ignored her. They did not produce a warrant.

In coming onto Mary’s property without a warrant, the ICE agents violated both the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and a Federal law and regulation that specifically prohibits entering residential property to effect a warrantless seizure:

An immigration officer may not enter into the non-public areas of a business, a residence including the curtilage of such residence, or a farm or other outdoor agricultural operation, except as provided in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, for the purpose of questioning the occupants or employees concerning their right to be or remain in the United States unless the officer has either a warrant or the consent of the owner or other person in control of the site to be inspected. (8 CFR § 287.8(f)(1).)

“Curtilage” is an ancient legal term that means the land and outbuildings immediately surrounding a home. The exception mentioned in the quoted regulation covers arrests without a warrant of someone suspected of being in the United States illegally if the arrest is made within 25 miles of a border. Mary’s house is not within 25 miles of a border. Moreover, the exception does not include entering a residence without a warrant. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2).

The 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ICE violated federal statutory law and the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

To my knowledge, this is the first such warrantless violation by ICE in Vermont.

ICE’s Contempt for the Rule of Law

The first principle of the Rule of Law states:

No state power (i.e., force, violence, institutions, or financial resources) may be exercised without specific authorization by law. No agent of government may act outside the law. And each such official must carry out the duties prescribed by law for his or her office.1

This is the subordination principle. It says that no government official may legally use the power or authority of the government without specific legal authorization. No independent frolics. No use of government power for private purposes. No autocratic, oligarchic, kleptocratic, or kakistocratic rule. Everyone is subject to the rules, and the rules apply to everyone. No exceptions.

In a democracy, the government has a monopoly on the use of force. The only exception is self defense. Under the Rule of Law, the use of force by government agents must be specifically authorized by law. Otherwise, it is illegal.

We’ve Heard Nothing from Governor Scott

VT Digger and Channel 5 reported the arrests on Mary’s property. Senator Ruth Hardy issued a statement condemning the arrests on her website. The Addison Independent reported the story on August 13.

Yet, Governor Scott has not issued any public statement nor, so far as we know, taken any action with respect to this violation of a Vermont citizen’s rights. We’ve heard nothing from the Governor’s Office.

Governor Scott’s Silence is a Failure of Leadership

When he took office in January 2025, Governor Scott swore the following oath:

I, Phillip B. Scott, do solemnly swear that I will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont and that I will not directly or indirectly do any act or thing injurious to the Constitution or government thereof, so help me God. I, Phillip B. Scott, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, so help me God. I, Phillip B. Scott, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of Governor of the State of Vermont, and will therein do equal right and justice to all persons, to the best of my judgment and ability, according to law, so help me God.

The broad meaning of that oath requires the Governor to take all necessary action to defend the rights of Vermont residents under the US Constitution, the Vermont Constitution, and the laws of the United States and of Vermont.

At the very least, the Governor has a responsibility to denounce the flagrant violation of the Constitution and federal law committed by ICE agents at Mary’s home on August 8. He has not yet done so.

Why Should Governor Scott Denounce the Illegal Acts of ICE Agents?

Why is it important for the Governor to denounce ICE’s violation of Mary’s rights?

In an essay published on July 10, 2024, I wrote that Trump and Project 2025 are coming for you, your family and your freedoms and quoted Martin Niemoeller’s famous poem:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me

If ICE can come onto Mary’s property and seize people without a warrant, ICE can come onto your property. ICE can come onto my property as well.

If ICE can get away with violating Mary’s rights, ICE can get away with violating your rights and my rights too.

The Governor of Vermont has a duty to protect our rights. He has the duty to protect all of us against the illegal acts by ICE or anyone else.

The least Governor Scott could do would be to denounce ICE’s actions on Mary’s property. He could let ICE and everyone else know that Vermont will not tolerate such lawless behavior.

But he hasn’t and, odds are, he won’t. Governor Scott has failed Vermont and Vermonters in his own stated goals. (See A Report Card for Governor Scott.) He is failing now to lead on denouncing and repudiating ICE’s illegal actions in Vermont.

It’s time for someone new. It’s time for Amanda Janoo.

Leave a comment

Share

In 2016, governor Scott campaigned on the promise to grow the economy, make Vermont more affordable, and protect the most vulnerable. In every state of the state and budget address, governor Scott has repeated those goals.

In this short video, I present a report card on governor Scott’s stewardship. Has he achieved those objectives? How is Vermont doing after 9 years of having Scott in charge?

Every Governor and every agency of government must have a strategic plan–a detailed statement of what it wants to achieve, the resources needed to reach those goals, and a set of intermediate projects that will get you to the ultimate objective. So, what strategic plan does Governor Scott have for growing the economy, making Vermont more affordable, and protecting the most vulnerable? This is a picture of the State of Vermont website on Governor Scott’s Vision and Strategic Priorities. Let’s click on “Current Strategic Plan” and see what it says.

Oh, no. It literally says, “Site under maintenance. Strategic plan is currently under maintenance. Thank you for your patience.”

In short, Vermont is adrift with no competent leader at the helm.

Gov. Scott is absent without leave.

So, on Strategic Planning, the Governor gets an F. He has not done the work at all. There is no plan against which we, the voters, can hold him accountable.

What about his stewardship on health care?

Here it’s a runaway train of costs and premiums increasing by double digits every year. Tens of thousands of Vermonters carry medical debt. 187,000 can’t afford to see a primary care doctor. He has no plan and has done nothing of consequence to fix the problem. Gov. Scott gets an F on health care.

Let’s turn to housing?

If anything, the housing story is worse than the health care report. 92% of Vermonters can’t afford a median-priced new home. Housing is not available. Vermont has one of the highest rates of homelessness in the nation. An honest grade must be an F here too.

What about Vermont schools?

On education, Governor Scott is addressing the school budget problem by proposing to close schools in small communities. 4th grade reading scores are declining, while states with fewer resources such as Mississippi have made measurable gains. He is ignoring health care costs, which are the main driver of school budget problems. He gets a D minus only because he has at least taken action, ill-considered though it might be.

What’s the story on the cost of living in Vermont?

Affordability is one of Governor Scott’s three recurring goals. Here too, Governor Scott has failed miserably. At least 45% of Vermont households fall short of a livable income by $10,000 to $20,000 a year. Property taxes have gone up more than 40% in 5 years.

In a February 2026 interview with the Boston Globe, Governor Scott admitted that Vermont is not more affordable than it was when he took office. People tell him they just can’t afford to live in Vermont any more.

In 2020, the General Assembly passed the Global Warming Solutions Act over Governor Scott’s veto. It would have put us on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to do our part in combatting the Climate Crisis. Vermont missed the 2025 emissions target because Scott and his administration have sat on their hands. It has been sued for failing to comply.

Meanwhile, 500 year floods continue to devastate Montpelier and other parts of the state.

Working families have been hit hardest by Governor Scott’s failures to do his job. He repeatedly vetoed legislative increases to the minimum wage. He vetoed paid family leave. He vetoed the child care expansion act. His response to every proposal to help working families has been a flat NO, and he has no plan of his own to help them.

On almost every subject, Governor Scott’s record earns an F. He has vetoed more than three times the number of bills as any previous governor of the state. Governor No has got to go.

On November 3, I’m voting for Amanda Janoo. How ‘bout you vote for her too?

I’m Mike Palmer. Thanks for watching.

Share

Leave a comment

Get your own copy of the Scott Report Card with this link. Pass it around.

Hey, let’s end on an upbeat note. Enjoy the great Joan Chamorro and friends at the Bar Colombia a few years ago.

Editor’s Note: Today’s essay is a guest article by Kelly Cummings of Fletcher, Vermont. It appeared originally as an op-ed piece in the St. Albans Messenger.

If you keep on doing what you've always done, you keep on getting what you've always got.

Let’s be honest, things are bad for the average, everyday, regular person. We can feel it in our gut. Gas prices, food prices, healthcare prices, housing prices and childcare prices, just to name a few, are costing us more than we can afford to pay. It’s as if the walls are closing in on us. Where’s the hope? Where’s the possibility? Where are those boots we have always been told we should pull up by their straps? Do we even matter anymore? Think about it. Do we?

In a world that is being driven by greed and power, at any cost to the average, everyday, regular person, we don’t stand a chance if we continue to accept the status quo approach. It is exactly what got us to where we are now.

Let’s Try Something Different

But are we brave enough to try something different? The greedy and powerful are betting—maybe even on Polymarket or Kalshi—that we are not. They figure we will fall in line, like we always do, because we will inevitably fall for the same old shtick. The same old scare tactics. The same old lies. The same old middle ground comfort that, for some reason, we believe will save us, help us and surely change things for the better. But it hasn’t. And it won’t, because pretend comfort doesn’t pay our bills, it doesn’t help us raise our children and it will not help us afford healthcare when we get sick.

It is time for a change. It is time, now more than ever, for us to be brave and bold and take that chance on real substantial change, no longer accepting - the “impossible to do” excuses. We know where we’re headed if we don’t. We know it’s most likely going to be bleak and hard and hopeless.

And if you haven’t figured that out by now, do a little research. Start paying attention. Be curious and ask questions. Not only have our leaders been suffering from a failure of imagination but so too have we. The time to expect and demand more from our leaders is now. We must no longer be appeased with old ideas and accepting of performative talk that is hollow and lazy.

This is important because our very lives and livelihoods may depend on it. It is now possible to imagine we may not survive the status quo much longer, the burden is already too heavy and getting heavier. But, it is also just as possible to imagine a different kind of future for ourselves and our children, if we dare. And dare we should. Dare we must. This is our chance.

Enter Amanda Janoo. Amanda is running to be the next governor of Vermont. Have you gone to her website janooforvt.com or maybe gone to one of her many events around the state? If you haven’t you should. She’s not the status quo and is not being supported by any status quo PACs like her opponent in the primary election, Aly Richards. And she’s not afraid to imagine a better future for Vermont.

Amanda is soft spoken and humble, but make no mistake about it, she is bold and brave and wants to roll up her sleeves and really get to work for us. She’s an economist, she’s smart, and I would also add a visionary. She’s ambitious, but her ambition is not for herself, it is for us.

Believe in the Possible

Imagine it, ambition for us. Ambition to improve the lives and well being of Vermonters. Wait, what? That’s backwards. Exactly, it is.

Some will tell you her ideas are not status quo enough or even pixie dust. I disagree with pixie dust because we know that any idea any of us have ever had, a desire to start a business, to get a degree, to start a family, began with our ability to first imagine it, then to believe it possible, then to really want to make it happen and then do just that.

We know that we as individuals have been able to accomplish the best things in our lives because of our own belief that they were possible. Don’t let The Established, once again, convince you otherwise. Not this time. They are going to try really hard, like they’ve always done, to convince you the status quo is the way to go. Just remember that’s what we have now and have had, for a very long time. Ask yourself, how has the status quo served you? It’s exactly what has brought us unaffordable healthcare, an unaffordable housing crisis and so many more things that keep us needing and yearning for just the basics of a life lived, for a little break - we’re tired.

It’s Time to Save Ourselves

Here’s the thing, we are going to have to save ourselves. We just are. We can start by choosing the best, out of the box and ambitious visionary leader to lead us. A leader who isn’t afraid to lead us or for that matter, to lead the legislators. A leader who sees us and will bring a determined heartfelt desire and new perspective to start solving some of our very old problems. A leader who has a plan on how to do it with Vermonter’s quality of life as her first priority.

I believe Democratic candidate Amanda Janoo is that leader and I will be casting my vote in the August 11th primary election for her. I hope you will too.

It’s time to stop doing what we’ve always done so we can stop getting what we’ve always got.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had about enough of the status quo that never seems to really fix anything.

What happens next is up to us.

Kelly Cummings, Fletcher, Vermont

Leave a comment

Share

There is a through line from the Sheriff of Nottingham to the ICEmen who murder people in cold blood. The individuals are interchangeable functionaries within a culture of government violence against anyone from the subservient classes who speaks up, speaks out, gets out of line, or just insists on living. From the Kings of England to the slaveholders of North America to the bosses who hired Pinkertons to beat, maim, and kill Union organizers to municipal police officers who brutalize and murder black and brown people to ICE agents in the Trump Administration, the police force has never been subject to the Rule of Law. For the most part, there are no laws governing what the police do. Police culture is a self-reproducing system that operates according to its own rules. It is not now nor has it ever been democratic or democratically controlled.1

What holds it in check—to the extent anything does—is public opinion, including public intolerance of known excesses.

Defending Morality

Moral norms are the product of (a) our collective refusal to tolerate improper behavior and (b) our collective demand for good conduct. Actions fall on a moral continuum:

Where types of actions fall on that continuum is not fixed. What yesterday was taboo may be perfectly acceptable tomorrow. And vice versa. Various social forces contribute to shifts in the moral framework of a group, an organization, or an entire society.

What happens to the moral framework when public officials like Donald Trump and the ICEmen violate long-established norms of socially prohibited conduct? The answer depends in large part on us—you and me. When public intellectuals say nothing, when political leaders say nothing, when religious leaders and religious communities say nothing, when we say nothing—then what was intolerable and forbidden can slide over into the acceptable column.

To have a society in which ICEmen feel free to murder with impunity, it is necessary only that the rest of us do and say nothing.

Under Donald Trump, public discourse has coarsened and public morality eroded. But millions of ordinary citizens have spoken out in one voice to say, “This is unacceptable.” They have done this in No Kings rallies, protests at Tesla dealerships, in front of courthouses, and holding signs in front of ICE detention facilities. And thousands have put their lives at risk by protecting targets of the ICE abduction machine.

Protesting Affects Policy and the Moral Consensus

Some may wonder whether all this demonstrating has any effect. Did the persistent anti-war protests during the Vietnam war hasten its end? Some social scientists conclude it did.2 Did the demonstrations protesting Jim Crow oppression in the South have an impact on public policy, leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Social scientists argue persuasively that these protests were key factors in bringing about an end to legal segregation.3

Regardless of the direct political effect of these protest movements, however, extended public protests can reshape moral norms by altering what people and institutions regard as tolerable, legitimate, or shameful; the U.S. Civil Rights movement is one of the clearest examples of protests that affect what we will and will not tolerate.4

As a child, I remember people in my town asking why the Germans permitted the Nazis to commit atrocities on an industrial scale. Their tone was slightly accusatory, as if to say, “We wouldn’t let that happen here.” The short answer is that many Germans did resist the Nazi machine and were promptly and efficiently murdered by the German government.5

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That language is in the First Amendment for a reason.

Organizing and showing up for a vigil to mourn the victims of ICE violence is a way of saying we find this conduct intolerable. It is a way, as Mary Gentile puts it,6 of giving voice to values— in this case, the sanctity, worth, and dignity of each human life.

Editor’s Note: At 4:00 on Saturday, July 25, Indivisible Middlebury is holding a vigil for the Victims of ICE Brutality starting at the Cross Street Bridge in Middlebury. Please join us.

Share

Leave a comment

Scott Killed Protection from AI Data Centers

On May 26, 2026, the Vermont Senate passed H.727 by a vote of 26–3. It cleared the House almost unanimously. H.727 would have created strict rules to control the building of large Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers. It aimed to protect local energy bills, water supplies, and the climate.1

On May 28, Governor Scott vetoed the bill, writing, “this bill creates an unacceptable precedent which will have much broader consequences for economic opportunity and long-term competitiveness in Vermont.”2 He indicated that Act 250 is sufficient to address concerns about data centers. He did not, however, say how the existing regulatory system provides the protections Vermonters want. It doesn’t.

Let’s take a look at the protections H.727 would put in place that Act 250 does not afford.

H.727 Would Have Protected Us and the Environment

H.727 introduces extensive, explicit protections for data centers that fall entirely outside the traditional jurisdiction of Act 250, focusing on grid stability, consumer protection, and strict environmental accountability.3 Financially, the legislation shields everyday consumers by requiring data centers to sign minimum 10-year utility contracts and absorb 100% of their infrastructure costs. Furthermore, it mandates real-time grid integration into utility-managed Virtual Power Plants (VPPs) for load-shifting, levies a recurring multi-million dollar energy transformation fee to fund local weatherization, and enforces continuous monitoring for EPA-detectable PFAS chemicals, known as "forever chemicals" because they don’t break down in the environment or the human body.

Procedurally, the bill establishes rigorous, data center-specific requirements that go far beyond standard Act 250 land-use reviews. Before applying for permits, facilities must conduct pre-permit site suitability analyses alongside local utilities and Efficiency Vermont. And they are required to use closed-loop cooling systems unless proven structurally infeasible. Additionally, H.727 lowers groundwater withdrawal permit thresholds and enforces mandatory biennial compliance audits to ensure ongoing adherence to grid and environmental standards. Ultimately, authority is distributed between the Public Utility Commission for grid and utility contracts and the Agency of Natural Resources for water and environmental permits, bypassing Act 250 entirely.

Governor Scott’s statement that Act 250 provides sufficient protections for Vermont’s rate payers and the environment is simply not true.

Scott Killed Help on Health Insurance Premiums

On June 16, 2026, Scott vetoed S.190, one of the healthcare-related bills the legislature passed this session. The bill would have helped lower costs for two groups paying some of the highest premiums in the state: public school employees and Vermonters buying coverage on the ACA marketplace, whose premiums have skyrocketed after Congress let the subsidies expire.

Governor Scott vetoed that bill too because it did not cover everyone.

Scott Killed Data Privacy

In June 2024, Scott vetoed the Vermont Data Privacy Act — a comprehensive bill that had passed the House 139–3 and would have given Vermonters the right to sue companies that misused their personal data, with strong protections aimed at children.4 Scott’s objection centered on that right to sue, which he warned would expose businesses to costly litigation. Well, the right to sue helps keep corporate capital from abusing its power. The Senate couldn’t muster the votes to override.5

Vermont lawmakers didn’t give up. Over the next two sessions they stripped out the provision Scott objected to and rebuilt the bill — S.71 — around Connecticut’s much weaker, industry-preferred model: consumer opt-ins, no right to sue, and lighter obligations on the companies collecting Vermonters’ data.6 On June 16, 2026, Scott signed it.

Compare what Vermonters lost. The 2024 bill would have let people sue companies that violated their privacy rights after giving those companies three months to fix the problem. The bill Scott finally signed gives Vermonters no such recourse — just the same “notice and choice” framework that privacy advocates nationally have called an illusion of protection. Big Tech companies including Google, Meta, Apple, and Amazon publicly thanked Scott’s administration for the 2024 veto. Vermont’s Attorney General said at the time that the administration had been “almost entirely absent” from the years of public process that built the stronger bill.

Scott never introduced his own privacy bill. He waited for the Legislature to write him a weaker one, and only then put his signature on something.

Why These Vetoes Matter When Assessing Governor Scott’s Stewardship

Governor Scott’s most recent vetoes brought his total to 63, over three times the number of any other governor in Vermont history. So many that insiders now call him Governor No.

As I wrote in a previous essay, Phil Scott is also the No Plan Man. Combine the lack of a strategy with the no to legislative initiatives and you have a Vermont on the road to nowhere.

Here’s why his obstructionism matters:

First, Vermont has real problems that are not being addressed because of Governor Scott’s obstruction. Highest-in-the-nation health insurance premiums (19.6% in Vermont compared with 4.2% in New Hampshire). 45% of adults earning less than a livable wage. Young people leaving the state. Population declining. Record homelessness. Second-highest median new home prices. Soaring property taxes.

Second, constant vetoes demoralize volunteer legislators. Each of our representatives and senators spends hundreds of hours crafting legislation to address and solve problems only to get stabbed in the back with Governor Scott’s veto pen. He doesn’t work with them to devise legislation he can support. He just lies in the weeds and then pounces when they do what they can. No wonder so many of our veteran legislators are retiring.

Third, vetoing legislation like the data centers bill and the healthcare premium reduction bill contributes to the continuing decline of our beautiful state. There is a compounding effect. Innovative organizations struggle to get going for lack of housing, unaffordable health care, and high property taxes. No one is managing the store. And it shows.

Governor No Has Got to Go

Governor Scott’s approval rating has dropped to 51% and his disapproval rate has risen to 43%. He’s not doing the job, and Vermonters have noticed.

Three bills. Three different issues — healthcare costs, energy costs, data privacy. Same governor, same move each time: block the Legislature’s solution, point vaguely at existing tools or a future executive action, and let the problem sit. None of these vetoes came with a competing plan. Two came with promises of “executive action” that, months later, remain unspecified. The third came with silence until someone else did the work of writing him something he’d accept.

That’s not fiscal caution. It’s not a competing vision for how to solve Vermont’s affordability crisis. It’s a governor whose only consistent program is stopping other people’s programs.

Governor No Has Got to Go.

Elect Can Do Janoo

Fortunately, this year we can replace Governor No with Amanda Janoo. Amanda has the plan, the expertise, and the experience to lead a well-being economy and fix what is broken in Vermont. Learn more at Janoo for Vermont. Get involved. Get your neighbors involved. The future of Vermont depends on it.

Previous Essays in this Series

Phil Scott: Vermont’s No Plan Man, June 7, 2026

The Plan Phil Scott Once Had, June 15, 2026

Is Governor Scott Trapped by Bad Thinking, June 29, 2026

The Myth of the Inevitable Governor, July 3, 2026

Share

Leave a comment

A new UNH poll shows Phil Scott’s approval rating has dropped dramatically.1 Until now, even long-standing Democratic operatives thought Phil Scott was untouchable. He was Vermont’s permanent fixture. You may as well save your energy, the story went, because anyone running against him would lose.

This story has kept good candidates on the sidelines for years.

All that changed dramatically on June 30 when the University of New Hampshire released its latest poll, which found that Scott’s approval rating had dropped from 64% in 2022 to 51% today.2 His disapproval rate has jumped to 43%.

And this is with very little news on the campaign and almost no advertising on Scott himself. Scott’s inaction and obstructionism in the face of unaffordable—well, everything: health care, housing, gasoline, groceries, education—are catching up with him organically.

People have noticed. They’ve noticed that Governor Scott wants to close their local schools, has done nothing to reduce the cost of housing or make more housing available, and opposes even baby steps to reduce health care premiums in Vermont—the highest in the nation. He presides over one of the highest rates of homelessness in all 50 states. He vetoed a bill that would have protected Vermont ratepayers from large-scale artificial intelligence data centers.3 And he just vetoed a bill that would have lowered insurance premiums for school employees and small businesses.4

Yes, if the election were held today, Scott might win. He is still leading Amanda Janoo, but only 42% of likely voters chose him. About a quarter of voters are undecided, which means they could be persuaded to join the 27 percent already supporting Janoo’s election and put her over the top.

I’m not saying Amanda Janoo is a cinch to win. Far from it. But it is entirely feasible for Janoo to be elected Vermont’s next governor.

The story of the invincible, inevitable governor is falling apart.

Start with his own numbers. Scott’s job approval has fallen to 51 percent — the lowest UNH has measured since it began asking the question in 2022. And here’s the part that should keep his campaign up at night: the decline isn’t coming from Democrats alone. It’s coming from Republicans too. Just 57 percent of his own party approves of him now, a substantial decline from earlier polls. This is exactly what the erosion of shallow support looks like — not just with the opposition, but with the base quietly drifting away.

Wrong Direction

The UNH poll also reports how Vermonters feel about the direction of the state. Only a third — 33 percent — think Vermont is headed the right way. Nearly half, 49 percent, say we’re on the wrong track.

That is not the mood of a state at peace with its leadership. When a governor is genuinely popular, people usually feel good about where things are going. Half of Vermont doesn’t. After a decade of affordability promised and never delivered, of housing that keeps slipping out of reach, of a school-consolidation fight that has landed hard in small towns, and of the most expensive health care in the nation, even Republicans want to change course.

Then there are the independents — the voters who decide statewide races in Vermont. With Janoo in the race, they currently split almost exactly down the middle: 29 percent for Scott, 28 percent for her. Think about that. An incumbent who has been on ballots here for more than ten years cannot pull away from a challenger most voters have never heard of. That is not the profile of deep support. That is the profile of a name people are used to, holding on by habit.

Getting to Know Amanda Janoo

Which brings me to the number I find most encouraging of all. Among Democratic Primary voters who have met Amanda Janoo — through her work, her writing, a town-hall, a conversation on a porch — favorable opinions outnumber unfavorable ones by seventeen to one. People who know Amanda like Amanda. She’s a candidate most Vermonters simply haven’t yet met.

A name everyone knows is only 15 points ahead of a name they’re just beginning to learn. The challenge is not to get voters to like Amanda Janoo. Those who meet her do—overwhelmingly. Rather, the challenge is to introduce her to everyone. And that happens not through a glitzy television ad campaign but one trusted conversation at a time.

YES WE CAN

That’s where you come in. You and thousands like you are the engine of getting Vermont on the right track. Go to Janooforvt.com and click on Get Involved to sign up for canvasing, phone banking, or a lawn sign. Click on the following picture to get a page of notes you can hand out to friends, neighbors, and everyone you meet:

Inevitability isn’t a fact. It’s a feeling — a spell a state casts on itself — and it breaks the moment enough people decide to stop believing it. The University of New Hampshire poll is the first crack in that spell. Scott is more vulnerable today than he has been in years, and the only question left is whether enough of us do the patient, person-to-person work to turn his soft, tired, borrowed support into a real choice.

We’re the ones we’ve been waiting for. Let’s introduce Vermont to its next governor—Amanda Janoo.

Leave a comment

Share

Over the past 9 years, Governor Scott has failed abysmally to achieve even the three objectives he repeatedly mentions when giving a major address or budget speech:

1. Grow the economy

2. Make Vermont more affordable

3. Protect the most vulnerable

While most Vermonters would agree that Governor Scott means well, the data show that he has not gotten the job done. His good intentions have not translated into more affordability or a better life for the most vulnerable. Working Vermonters are worse off than they were in 2017 when he took office.1

Gone Fishing

To solve a water damage problem, it’s necessary to find out how the water is getting into the house. If you just patch the damaged ceiling, the next big rain will cause the same damage again.

To solve a leadership problem, either the leader changes or you change the leader.

At the core of most leadership problems is either the failure to think or improper thinking.

With Governor Scott, it is possible that we have both. That is, he is not doing the thinking the job requires. And the mindset with which he approaches his work is fundamentally flawed.

In Vermont’s No Plan Man, I explained that Governor Scott has not put forth a strategic plan for Vermont in at least three years. That’s a failure to think.

Neither he nor his Administration has articulated a vision for Vermont with a plan for how to achieve it, including milestones and other benchmarks by which voters can hold him accountable. That’s basic nonfeasance, a fancy word for not doing the job. It’s like you hired an architect to design an office building but never saw any drawings. All you got were generalities about how nice the building would look.

The Scott Administration has no senior economic-policy strategist or growth architect at its center. It has no standing council of economic advisers and no office of strategic planning. The Administration does not produce or maintain a current statewide plan with measurable targets. There is no institutional home for the root-cause analysis that Vermont’s problems demand.

On its webpage, the Agency of Commerce and Community Development advertises a “2020 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy” (CEDS). That document is a federally-supported plan produced regionally by the Regional Development Corporations and Regional Planning Commissions. It is not a comprehensive strategy developed by the Administration.

More important, the CEDS was last updated in February 2016, that is, under the Shumlin Administration. The Scott Administration has not updated the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy in the 9 years that Governor Scott has been in office.

The federal government created the Council of Economic Advisers in 1946 on a simple premise: a modern executive cannot govern an economy without professional economic counsel positioned to advise on direction, not just to keep the books. Given Vermont’s specific problems—a shrinking working-age population, the nation's highest health-insurance premiums, a severe housing shortage, and taxes rising faster than incomes — we need a chief economist with a small analytics team, a strategic plan that sets and tracks measurable goals, and the practice of commissioning rigorous diagnoses before committing to remedies. We have none of that.

It’s almost as if Governor Scott had hung a sign on the door: “Gone Fishing.”

Is Governor Scott Mesmerized by a Magic of the Marketplace Mindset?

When a CEO fails to do the job, most boards don’t agonize over why. The just replace the CEO with someone they believe can get it done. This happens routinely in the corporate and nonprofit worlds. And CEO’s understand: Either they deliver the goods or they must leave.

But that’s short-sighted thinking. How do you know what to look for in the replacement if you don’t understand why the first person failed. You could be putting someone in the job who just repeats the same mistakes. So, let’s take a moment to examine what might have led Governor Scott to completely neglect his planning responsibilities as Governor.

Based on Governor Scott’s own speeches and pronouncements, it appears that he is trapped in a “magic of the marketplace” mindset.

In his FY2027 budget address, Governor Scott explained that every proposed initiative is run past three questions — does it grow the economy, make Vermont more affordable, protect the most vulnerable — and if it doesn't satisfy at least one of these three, it doesn't move forward. He first set these as an executive order on his opening day in 2017. The structure is the argument. Economic growth and affordability are the gatekeepers, and the safety net enters as a residual ("the most vulnerable"), not as a general purpose of government.

Governor Scott is using a market-first priority as an operating rule. It’s a belief system that was expressed most strongly by Milton Friedman and other economists at the University of Chicago.

A companion piece of this thinking is the notion that the economy will grow and everyone will be better off if we lower taxes and curtail regulation. In this view, lower taxes will lead to investment and stimulate growth.2 Free, unregulated markets—driven by self-interest and voluntary exchange—spontaneously organize the efforts of millions of people to produce goods efficiently.3

The following joke sums up the Chicago School ideology:

How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. If the lightbulb needed changing, the market would have already done it.

A crude way of putting this is, “Let the rich get insanely rich and everyone else will be OK.” It’s the “rising-tide-lifts-all-boats” meme from the 60’s turned into government policy.4

But as the wealthy have increased their wealth in complete disregard for everyone else, the boats of the poor and middle class have not risen. They’ve been swamped.

By implementing magical market thinking in Vermont, Governor Scott has opened the door to the destruction of Vermont’s housing market by private equity firms, the explosion of health care costs, and the second-highest rate of homelessness in the nation. He has failed to implement the Global Warming Solutions Act to mitigate Climate Change. In short,

IT’S NOT WORKING.

After 9 years of Scott’s Governorship, Vermont ranks 51st in the nation—51st!—on economic momentum.5 Vermont is dead last in property tax burden. Vermont’s average wage in 2025 was $67,164, well below the U.S. average of $78,722.6 Not even Chittenden County gets up to the national average.

Governor Scott says his approach to governing is pragmatic. But it has nothing to do with the pragmatism developed by C.S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey at Harvard and Columbia at the beginning of the 20th Century. Rather, it is the dregs of a gouge-the-poor selfishness dressed up in a supposedly respectable but defunct economic theory.7

Amanda Janoo Will Lead a Well-Being Economy

It’s time for thinking that actually works. Amanda Janoo has helped Pamona, California, Toronto, Porirua New Zealand, and Perth Scotland put well-being economies in place.8 She can do the same for Vermont.

If you want a better life in and for Vermont, sign up at Janooforvt.com to help get her elected. You can make a gift, canvas, put up a lawn sign, and do your own bit in other ways.

Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of essays on the Governor Vermont needs to meet its current challenges. Subscribe to get every essay and leave a comment to join the conversation.

Previous Essays in this Series

Phil Scott: Vermont’s No Plan Man, June 7, 2026

The Plan Phil Scott Once Had, June 15, 2026

Share

Leave a comment

If you want to get help elect Amanda Janoo, click on the picture below, then download and print the page. Cut it into four squares and hand them out to friends and neighbors.

Subscribe now

Phil Scott once told Vermonters exactly how to judge him.

When Phil Scott ran for governor in 2016, he asked Vermonters to expect more of their state. His Comprehensive Blueprint for Economic Growth promised a Vermont that would grow more affordable each year. A young family could find a house within their budget. Health care would cost less not more. The workforce would stop shrinking. The most vulnerable would be protected. And young adults would stop leaving. He put these promises in writing and asked Vermonters to hold him to them.

Ten years later, many of those same Vermonters feel quietly let down. The most vulnerable have not been protected. Vermont has the second-highest homeless rate in the nation. And Governor Scott admits that Vermont is not more affordable today than when he became governor.

In February, Scott told the Boston Globe what he hears from the people around him. His own friends and neighbors, he said, tell him “I just can’t afford it anymore. I just can’t stay here anymore, because I’ve talked to my cousin in Tennessee or Florida, and things aren’t as bad there as they are here.”1 Asked directly about the record, he conceded the point: “When I talk with Vermonters today, they certainly don’t think Vermont is more affordable than it was 10 years ago.”2 He added that they did not think it was affordable then, either — which is true, and which is rather the point. Vermont’s affordability problem is exactly the problem he was elected to solve. He diagnosed it, named it the highest priority of his administration, and told us how to measure whether he was fixing it. A decade on, the man who made the promise agrees it has not been kept.

In the first essay in this series I called Phil Scott Vermont’s No Plan Man, and closed by pointing to a plan he presented to Vermonters in the 2016 election. This essay is about that document — what it was, what it promised, and why it remains the fairest standard by which to judge him.

A serious plan

The Comprehensive Blueprint for Economic Growth was the most detailed governing plan any Vermont candidate had put before the voters in recent memory. It ran to a twelve-part economic growth plan and a set of addenda — on truth in budgeting, government modernization, transportation, restoring faith and trust in government, and the opiate epidemic — and it carried, by its own count, “more than 50 specific ideas, initiatives and proposals.”3 It was organized under three words: Progress. Affordability. Opportunity. It may have been the deciding factor in his defeat of Sue Minter, with whom he was polling neck and neck just three weeks before the election.

The Blueprint did not hedge about the stakes. It diagnosed a “Crisis of Affordability” and declared that making Vermont more affordable for families and businesses “must be Montpelier’s highest priority.” Around that diagnosis it arranged its pillars: protect the jobs we have, expand a shrinking workforce, put health care reform “back on track,” revitalize the economies of every county, build housing working families could afford, reform taxes to keep people here, modernize a costly government. I will address each of these in a separate essay in this series, because each came with commitments specific enough to check.

“We will not overpromise and we will always follow through.”

Near the front of the Blueprint, Candidate Phil Scott wrote: “We will not overpromise and we will always follow through.”4 Throughout the document he returns, again and again, to a single demand — that government be judged by “measurable results.”5

Scott told Vermonters how to grade him, and he set the bar himself. So, this series takes him at his word. The essays that follow will hold up the yardstick he handed us and ask the question he invited: did he follow through?

He framed Vermont’s slow-motion crisis in three numbers — what his administration came to call “6-3-1.” Every single day, he said, there are on average six fewer workers in our workforce, three fewer children in our schools, and nearly one baby born exposed to opioids.6 It was an effective appeal precisely because it was not just a statistic. It was six neighbors gone, three empty desks, a newborn shaking in a hospital crib — every day.

It was not just a campaign document

On his first day in office, Governor Scott signed an executive order built around reversing the 6-3-1 trends, and his administration then translated the Blueprint into the formal machinery of government: a State Strategic Plan for 2018 through 2023, the official strategic plan of the State of Vermont, with measurable goals and target dates. True, it’s only one page, which makes it more an outline of a plan than one that shows how it will be put into effect. But it clearly states a vision of a Vermont whose “economy is growing faster than the costs of living” and that is “measurably more affordable each year for families and businesses.”7

Scott made affordability in Vermont the standard for measuring his own government and committed the state to keeping score.

Then the measuring stopped

The State Strategic Plan covered the years 2018 through 2023. It expired on June 30, 2023, and it was never renewed.8 The Vermont that was promised to grow “measurably more affordable each year” has instead grown less affordable, year after year, and Governor Scott stopped keeping score.

He did not follow the plan with a new strategic plan. Instead, he replaced it with a set of slogans. The administration’s priorities are now described in three words — “Workers, Kids and Communities” — and three mandates: grow the economy, make Vermont more affordable, protect the most vulnerable.9 There are no targets. There are no dates. There is no way to keep score, which may be the point. The score has never gone as he promised. The man who in 2016 said Vermont, under his watch, would stop losing six workers a day no longer reports the number at all.

The State’s website tells visitors that “a regularly updated strategic plan guides this work.”10 But if you click on the link for this updated plan, you get a page that says, “Strategic plan is currently under maintenance. Thank you for your patience.” There has not been a new plan at least since 2023.

How this series will proceed

Each essay in this series will take up one promise from Scott’s 2016 Blueprint, state it in Scott’s own words, and set it beside what Vermonters actually got — using his administration’s own data and reputable Vermont reporting.

This series is not about Phil Scott’s character or motives. It’s about results.

If you have felt, these last few years, that you are working harder just to stay in place, you are not imagining it, and you are not alone. Phil Scott gave us the yardstick for assessing his stewardship. In the essays that follow, we are simply going to use that measuring rod.

We will begin where Vermonters feel it first: the cost of their schools, and the property tax bill that arrives every summer.

Get Involved with Janoo Campaign

Click on this link to learn about and get involved with the Amanda Janoo Campaign.

Previous Essays in this Series

Phil Scott: Vermont’s No Plan Man, June 7, 2026

Leave a comment

Share

The Job of a Governor

The job of a state governor has three parts:

• First, develop a vision for what the state could and should be.

• Second, create a strategy for achieving that vision.

• Third, inspire legislators, administrators, NGO’s, and citizens to get the job done.

You cannot achieve what you do not first conceive. Thinking — proactive, disciplined thinking — is the first job of the governor. Other people help with the thinking, of course. But the buck stops with the governor. Making the final judgment on any policy or program is the governor's responsibility. So is setting up the processes that produce the thinking in the first place.

Three Priorities But No Strategy to Achieve Them

For eight years, Governor Scott has named three priorities:

• Grow the economy,

• make Vermont more affordable, and

• protect the most vulnerable.

These are his priorities, by his own statement, in every State of the State and every budget address. They are good priorities. The intentions are admirable. The question this essay asks is not whether Phil Scott wants the right things for Vermont. The question is whether, in eight years of holding the office that has the power to deliver those things, he has done the work the office requires.

We must ask, therefore, how has he done? We owe it to the people whose lives these intentions were to have made better to ask: Has he succeeded in growing the economy, making Vermont more affordable, and protecting the most vulnerable?

Sadly, we must conclude that by each of these measures, Governor Scott has failed, abysmally so.

The economy. Wages have not kept pace with the rest of the country.1 “Over the past two decades, real wages for the lowest earners in Vermont grew more slowly than in any other New England state or in the U.S. as a whole.”2

Affordability? In a February 2026 interview with the Boston Globe, Governor Scott admitted, “the affordability crisis that some of us have been talking about for decades is real.” Scott has heard friends and family members say, “I just can’t afford it anymore. I just can’t stay here anymore, because I’ve talked to my cousin in Tennessee or Florida, and things aren’t as bad there as they are here.” “And Scott himself readily concedes the picture has not improved during his time in office. ‘When I talk with Vermonters today, they certainly don’t think Vermont is more affordable than it was 10 years ago,’ he said. ‘Nor do they think it was affordable then.’”3 Vermont has the most unaffordable housing in the United States.4

The most vulnerable. Vermont has the second highest homeless rate in the country.5 Over 45% of 2-adult households with no children do not have livable incomes. That is, they have to cut corners and go without some basic necessities. Over 187,000 underinsured Vermonters can’t afford to see a primary care provider to address early-stage illnesses or preventable diseases like hypertension and diabetes because their deductibles are $4,000 or more. They are more, not less, vulnerable.6

For all Governor Scott’s congeniality, he has failed where it matters in the daily lives of Vermonters.

To quote the cliché: Are you better off now than you were eight years ago? By Scott’s own admission, most Vermonters would say NO.

Why Good Governance Requires Strategic Planning

The work of state agencies cannot be coordinated without a strategic plan. A good plan sets short-, medium-, and long-term goals that agencies can use to direct their work. It identifies necessary resources and how to get them. It develops legislation to support the work. It determines who will do the work. It sets a timeline for achieving them. And it sets measurable, time-bound goals against which everyone involved can be held accountable.

Without a strategic plan, agencies make it up as they go along. Voters cannot hold a governor accountable for missing goals he never set. Journalists cannot ask agency heads about progress against benchmarks that do not exist. Legislators cannot draft bills to advance an agenda that has never been articulated. Everything stays at the level of amorphous generalities like “growing the economy.”7

Strategic planning has been the consensus best practice in American public administration for nearly a century. John Bryson’s standard reference, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (6th edition), defines it as the disciplined work of producing the fundamental decisions that shape what an organization does and why it does it. Scott has not produced a strategic plan since 2017.

He Once Had a Blueprint

In 2016, candidate Phil Scott handed Vermont voters a forty-page comprehensive blueprint for economic growth. It contained more than fifty specific proposals across twelve subject areas — a Government Modernization plan, a Truth in Budgeting plan, a Transportation Priorities plan, an Opiate Action plan, and an Economic Growth plan with a dozen parts of its own.

In 2017, Governor Scott followed it with a State Strategic Plan covering 2018 through 2023. That was the first, last, and only such strategic plan. If you go on the website where the latest plan should be, you will find a picture stating “Site under maintenance. Strategic Plan is currently under maintenance. Thank you for your patience.”

For at least the past 3 years, there has been no plan. Phil Scott is the No Plan Man.

Subscribe now

What Vermont Has Lost

Much of Vermont’s decline over the past nine years could have been avoided if competent professionals had been appointed to lead agencies guided by a well-written plan. You can see the cost in hospitals struggling to survive, in property taxes rising at double-digit rates, in greenhouse-gas-reduction goals quietly missed, in young Vermonters leaving and too few moving in to replace them, in schools underperforming, and in the second-highest homelessness rate in the union.

This bleak scorecard is the result of failed leadership at the most basic level.

Vermonters have been patient long enough. They deserve a governor who has a vision for the state, a strategy for achieving it, and the discipline to do the hard thinking the office requires.

Action You Can Take

You can help change the course of Vermont history by sharing just one fact from this essay with friends and neighbors. For example, “Did you know that Governor Scott has not put a strategic plan in place for over 3 years and that the site where it would normally be says it’s ‘under maintenance.’?” Start a conversation. Share this essay. Download, print, and share the Report Card below.

We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Share

Leave a comment

If you want to get help elect Amanda Janoo, click on the picture below, then download and print the page. Cut it into four squares and hand them out to friends and neighbors.

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of essays on the Governor Vermont needs to meet its current challenges. Subscribe to get every essay and leave a comment to join the conversation.

Get your own copy of A Report Card for Phil Scott and share with friends and neighbors.

The vast majority of Americans go to work everyday, creating something of benefit for others. Some are self-employed. Some own and operate small businesses. Most are employed by a small, medium, or large organization. They show up and do the work.

They—we—have a moral right to a fair share of what all of us produce together. But that’s not the capitalist way. The capitalist way says the legal owner of the business has a legal right to extract as much work for as little pay as possible. Exploitation is built into the system.

It’s not morally right; but we’ve known that for 200 years.

As a result of this system, a miniscule few have obscene levels of wealth and income. They buy themselves large yachts, airplanes, and multiple mansions. Millions and millions of Working Americans can’t afford day care, health care, or housing. The working poor—as Barbara Ehrenreich demonstrated in Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America—struggle even to survive from paycheck to paycheck. We all benefit from the work they do. Yet, the working poor get shut out from the fruits of their labor.

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE

Over the past 35 years, the corporate class captured the Democratic Party and many of its leaders. Those leaders do the bidding of their wealthy donors. They rarely stick their necks out for Working Americans.

We need leaders who will make a fuss for us. We need leaders like Graham Platner:

My theory is this. There’s a lot of nuanced conversations around a whole bunch of topics in this country that we will all get to expend an immense amount of energy talking about once everybody has healthcare. Once everybody has healthcare, I am happy to expend all of my wind talking about these other things. Until that day comes, until everybody can go to a hospital and get the care that they need to live the type of life that they want to live, to get the type of dignity and fulfillment out of life once people don’t have to worry about over 50% of their income going to rent. Once we’re past that, I’m happy to talk about all that. right now down here in the real world, those two things especially are destroying people’s lives. And that’s not like a it’s not hyperbole. It’s not a it’s not a talking point. It’s not a campaign slogan. It’s actually true.

Join the Campaign for Publicly Funded Health Care

We need leaders who will make a fuss for us. YOU can be that leader.

We must require our elected representatives and government officials take up the cause of publicly funded health care. They aren’t likely to do that unless you and I demand it. One way to demand it is to grow a campaign for publicly funded universal health care, like the one taking shape in Vermont right now.

H.433, a bill introduced three years ago in the Vermont House, will phase in publicly funded health care for all Vermonters over 10 years, beginning with universal primary care. But the bill is languishing in the health care committee.

So, dozens of Vermonters across the state have started a petition to put a resolution calling for passage of this bill on Town Meeting agendas across the state.

If you live in Vermont, you can get involved and help make universal health care a reality for Vermont and Vermonters. (If you live in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or New York, we certainly don’t mind if you come over the border and help out too.)

Here’s how:

1. Go to the Toolkit for Volunteers.

2. Read the Step-by-Step Guide for Volunteers

3. Download the Template for the Petition and change [NAME HERE] to the name of your town.

4. Recruit friends and neighbors to help.

5. Collect signatures from at least 5% of the legal voters of your town.

6. Submit the signed petitions to your Town Clerk no later than January 15.

You don’t need to register with anyone. You don’t need permission. Just do it.

Register for the webinar on Monday, January 5, at 5:15, in which several activists will answer questions about the bill and gathering signatures. (Register to get the recording if you’re not available at that time.)

You can learn much more about the bill from materials in the toolkit, including from a video on Pass 433 Now.

Democracy Belongs to those Who Show Up

We defend democracy by doing democracy. Joining the campaign for universal health care by gathering and submitting signatures on the Pass 433 Now petition is doing democracy.

Share

Like you, I’ve been increasingly disturbed by our fractious polarization.

One of the keys to finding our way out is truly understanding those we think are completely wrong. We must understand what others think and why they think it and how they see us.

They must feel truly understood. The feeling of being understood occurs at an emotional level. It’s not just an intellectual event

Our reflex response to others is to tell them where they’re wrong and we’re right.

You know what? It doesn’t work. If we want them to understand us, we must first understand them.

Understanding Others is an Art You Can Learn

There’s an art to understanding other people—especially those with whom we vigorously disagree. Skilled mediators and negotiation professionals have used and taught that it for decades. The more of us who master the art of understanding, the better off we’ll all be.

That’s why I created a free 90-minute workshop on listening to understand others. Our brochure explains in detail:

Get the Brochure

This is a hands-on, practical session in which you’ll start practicing the art of understanding others right away. It’s something you can use next week, when Uncle Butch or Aunt Nita shares her political views along with the pumpkin pie at Thanksgiving Dinner.

Here’s the key information:

Saturday, November 22, 2025

11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Eastern Time

Online

FREE

Register for the Workshop

Why This, Why Now

To overcome our adversarial polarization we need the ability to genuinely understand people who see the world differently than we do.

It’s more than just paying attention to what they say. It’s about also understanding why they see what they see.

The assumption that everyone who disagrees with us is either uninformed, irrational, or acting in bad faith kills our ability to have meaningful, productive conversations. It costs us relationships. It makes political discussions feel like a battle rather than a dialogue.

Why can’t Uncle Butch see just how wrong he is? (You know what? Uncle Butch asks the same question about us.)

What You’ll Learn

This is not a lecture about being nice or finding common ground, another exhortation to civility. (Nothing wrong with that, of course.)

It’s 90 minutes devoted to acquiring the skills to understand others on their terms. We’ll use real scenarios from political conversations, workplace conflicts, and family gatherings. And we’ll learn:

• Why we struggle so much to understand perspectives different from our own (the psychology is fascinating)

• The single biggest barrier to genuine listening—and how to overcome it in yourself

• Practical techniques you can use immediately at the Thanksgiving table, in community spaces, or in political discussions

• How to create conditions for real dialogue, even when emotions are running high

Who This Is For

This workshop is for you if:

• You have relationships strained or broken by the current political climate

• You want to model a different way of engaging across difference

• You’re exhausted by shouting matches and performative outrage

• You believe understanding others is both possible and essential—even now, especially now

• You want practical tools, not just good intentions

• You’re dreading political conversations at Thanksgiving

What This Isn’t

This is not about:

• Convincing anyone to change their political views

• Finding false “both sides” equivalencies

• Abandoning your own values or convictions

• Forcing niceness or suppressing legitimate anger

• Pretending everything is fine when it’s not

It’s about developing the capacity to genuinely understand how others see the world, which is the foundation for everything else—relationship, dialogue, collaboration, and yes, even productive conflict.

The Practical Stuff

When: Saturday, November 23, 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM Eastern Time

Where: Online via Zoom (link sent upon registration)

Cost: FREE

Size: Only 24 spots total.

Get the Brochure

Register Now

P.S. Can’t make it Saturday but want these skills? Send me an email (mike@winbeforetrial.com), and I’ll keep you informed.

Please restack or share this post with others.

Share

Review of Burned by Billionaires by Chuck Collins

Chuck Collins’s Burned by Billionaires: How Concentrated Wealth and Power Are Ruining Our Lives and Planet offers a compelling and urgent examination of the systemic forces driving wealth inequality in the United States. Drawing from his extensive research and personal experience as a member of the ultra-wealthy class, Collins explores how the top 0.01% have not only amassed unprecedented fortunes but have also engineered a system that perpetuates their dominance at the expense of the broader public.

An economy that funnels wealth to billionaires is bad for your health, your pocketbook, your housing options, and the quality of your environment. It robs you of your political voice while dictating what’s in the news and on your dinner plate. It supercharges and inflames existing divides in our society, and fuels division and civil discord.

The Mechanics of Inequality

Collins delves into the mechanisms by which the ultra-wealthy consolidate and protect their wealth. He highlights how tax policies favoring the rich, deregulation, and the influence of money in politics have created a “wealth defense industry” that shields the affluent from economic and social accountability. This system results in a disproportionate allocation of resources, leading to diminished public services, increased environmental degradation, and a weakened democratic process (Institute for Policy Studies).

Comparative Perspectives

Collins’s analysis aligns with and extends the work of other scholars who have explored the dynamics of wealth and income inequality. In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Thomas Piketty examines the historical patterns of capital accumulation and distribution, arguing that when the rate of return on capital outpaces economic growth, inequality widens. Similarly, in Capital and Ideology, Piketty explores the ideological constructs that justify inequality and the political systems that sustain it. Brooke Harrington’s Offshore: Stealth Wealth and the New Colonialism provides an in-depth look at how the global elite use offshore finance to conceal wealth and evade taxes, further entrenching economic disparities.

We Need Government Action

As Piketty, Harrington, and now Collins make clear, ultra wealth has created a self-reinforcing system that feeds its own growth. One might think it would eventually collapse on its own, having sucked all the sustenance out of everyone and everything else. Perhaps. But that does not seem to be happening anytime soon. To the contrary, Collins argues persuasively that wealth and income inequality are getting rapidly worse.

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), John Maynard Keynes rejected the classical idea that markets are self-correcting and argued that without active government involvement, economies could remain stuck in prolonged recessions or depressions. Keynes emphasized the essential role of government in maintaining economic stability and ensuring that economic systems function optimally and fairly.

Similar to Keynes, Collins underscores the necessity of governmental intervention to rectify economic imbalances.

Wealth Defense Industry and Tax Evasion

Collins highlights the role of the “wealth defense industry”—comprising lawyers, accountants, and consultants who assist the ultra-wealthy in minimizing taxes and shielding assets. This industry’s activities result in significant revenue losses for governments, undermining public services and infrastructure. Collins argues that such practices require robust governmental oversight and reform to ensure tax fairness and accountability.

Political Capture and Democratic Erosion

The concentration of wealth among the top 0.01% has led to political capture, where the interests of a few dominate policy decisions. This undermines democratic principles and erodes public trust in governance.

Call for Systemic Reform

In his book, Collins offers concrete prescriptions for reclaiming power from the billionaire class, advocating for:

• Tax Reforms: Implementing progressive tax policies to ensure the wealthy contribute their fair share.

• Strengthening Labor Rights: Empowering workers to negotiate better wages and working conditions.

• Political Accountability: Enacting measures to reduce the influence of money in politics and enhance democratic participation.

These recommendations underscore the role of government in addressing economic disparities and promoting social equity.

Broader Advocacy and Moral Responsibility

In his twenties, Collins gave away the bulk of the fortune he inherited to progressive causes.1 He has long been an active advocate for addressing wealth inequality. He co-founded United for a Fair Economy, an organization dedicated to raising awareness about the detrimental effects of concentrated wealth and power on democracy and society. Program Director at the Institute for Policy Studies, Collins also co-edits Inequality.org. Through his work, Collins emphasizes the moral imperative for governments to implement policies that promote economic justice and equity.

In this Collins echoes the voices of Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, each of whom has long sought to address wealth inequality through legislation. Their efforts resonate with Collins’s call for systemic change, emphasizing that to rectify economic disparities, there must be a concerted political effort to reform the structures that enable and perpetuate them.

Chuck Collins’s work underscores the critical role of government in rectifying economic imbalances. He advocates for systemic reforms that address tax fairness, political accountability, and social equity to combat the detrimental effects of concentrated wealth and power.

Conclusion

Burned by Billionaires is a timely work that illuminates the mechanisms of wealth inequality and serves as a call to action. Collins provides readers with the tools to understand the complexities of economic systems and the importance of political engagement in fostering a more equitable society. By situating his analysis within a broader historical and ideological context, Collins contributes to an ongoing dialogue about the future of economic justice in America.

How do we get the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, which is just as guilty of taking money from billionaire causes, to embrace a progressive working class agenda, because it’s about time?

Bernie said, “You’re going to lead it, Max.”

The clip is from an 18-minute video by More Perfect Union documenting Bernie’s recent visit to West Virginia.

At another point in the video, a woman explains:

The first night was just like real eye opening for me. It was like a whole mind shift of my whole belief system of like how like how we could come together as a people. We all want our kids to have a safe place to live. We all want our kids to have food. We all want our kids to have healthcare. Like there’s no difference. We all need to fight together. Cuz if we’re fighting each other, we’re not going to ever get anywhere.

She’s right. We all need to fight together for each other.

Watch the entire video on More Perfect Union.

Several people have observed that Trump’s audacious lies have the function of separating the die-hard MAGA loyalists from the fellow travelers and opportunists. These lies function as a test by which Trump and his inner circle can determine who is with him no matter what. If they buy and broadcast his core lies—the 2020 election was stolen from him, he got more popular votes than Hillary, Haitian immigrants are eating cats in Springfield, Ohio—regardless of evidence to the contrary, they are truly loyal.

As Anne Applebaum put it in Autocracy in America last year:

The Big Lie . . . helps the leader, the autocrat, establish who’s loyal, who’s on our side, and who’s not. You know, if you promise to believe in the made-up story, then you can work for the government or the party or whatever, and if you don’t, you’re out.1

Applebaum adds that Putin, Stalin and other autocrats have used the same device to secure a loyal following that will believe the dictator rather than “their lying eyes.”

For the vast majority of the MAGA Cult, acceptance of Trump’s lies is not transactional, not a means to get or keep a cabinet position or other high-level government job. It is about belonging to and being accepted by a group that allays anxieties, fears, uncertainty, and the feeling of being out of control.

Cults are Part of The Human Experience

There is nothing new about the underlying psychological mechanism. In his book, On Truth, Simon Blackburn writes of truth and religion:

The principal function of religious practice was to weld numbers of people into a social whole, a congregation. To this end the arbitrary nature of practices of faith, such as the veneration of some text, or some place or object, is ideally adapted. You gain a separate identity, a tribal badge as it were, by the very arbitrariness. You can't distinguish yourself from your neighbors by saying that we are the people who eat and breathe, but you can by identifying as the people who read just these books or sing just these songs, wear these hats, grow these beards, cut our hair, where veils, take off our shoes, eat seafood, worship cows, or don't.2

In this respect, the MAGA Cult is no different from the thousands of cults that have sprung up in human history. As Kurt Anderson has shown, America in particular is fertile ground for such cults.3

They Saw a Game . . . Or Did They See Many Games?

On a brisk November afternoon in 1951, Dartmouth traveled to Palmer Stadium in Princeton to play the hometown team in its last football game of the season. In the second quarter, Princeton’s star left the game with a broken nose. One of Dartmouth’s players was knocked out of the game with a broken leg in the third quarter. The referees kept blowing their whistles, penalizing Dartmouth with a total of 70 yards and Princeton with 25, not counting the plays in which both sides were flagged. Most agreed. It was a rough game.

Four days after the game, the Daily Princetonian wrote about how unfair the Dartmouth team had played, accusing it of deliberately trying (successfully) to injure Princeton’s star player. Not to be outdone, a few days later, the Dartmouth responded in kind, asserting that the Princeton coach had incited the Tigers to inflict injuries on the Dartmouth players, which they succeeded in doing by injuring the leg of one unprotected quarterback and breaking the leg of the other.

Up to now, this story is not highly unusual. Fans in sports rivalries are known to take sides over the officiating and alleged lack of fair play by the opposing team.

But two psychology professors decided to conduct a study to examine what was going on in the minds of the students. After all, they all saw the same game. Or did they?

A week after the game, Albert Hastorf of Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril of Princeton asked students in their respective psych classes to complete a questionnaire “designed to get reactions to the game and to learn something of the climate of opinion in each institution.”4

The second step consisted of showing the same motion picture of the game to a sample of undergraduates in each school and having them check on another questionnaire, as they watched the film, any infraction of the rules they saw and whether these infractions were "mild" or "flagrant."

When Hastorf and Cantril compiled the results of the study, “[n]early all Princeton students judged the game as "rough and dirty"—not one of them thought it ‘clean and fair.’ And almost nine tenths of them thought the other side started the rough play.” Similarly, “when Dartmouth students looked at the movie of the game . . . they saw their own team make only half the number of infractions the Princeton students saw them make.”5

After studying the students’ various responses and laying them out in a table, Hastorf and Cantril stated:

It seems clear that the ‘game’ actually was many different games and that each version of the events that transpired was just as ‘real’ to a particular person as other versions were to other people.6

They then drew a conclusion about how we experience events generally:

Of crucial importance is the fact that an ‘occurrence’ on the football field or in any other social situation does not become an experiential ‘event’ unless and until some significance is given to it: an ‘occurrence’ becomes an ‘event' only when the happening has significance. And a happening generally has significance only if it reactivates learned significances already registered . . .7

In other words, a raw fact only becomes a meaningful "event" when it fits into the pre-existing worldview we already hold.

We See What Our Group Sees

Philosophers and psychologists have known for centuries that our minds construct the world we perceive and do not actually see the thing itself.8

What is of particular interest for our understanding of the MAGA Cult (and similar social systems) is the apparent synchronization of selective perception by groups of people, depending on the group to which they belonged.

In brief, the data here indicate that there is no such ‘thing’ as a ‘game’ existing ‘out there’ in its own right which people merely ‘observe.’ The ‘game’ ‘exists’ for a person and is experienced by him only in so far as certain happenings have significances in terms of his purpose.

* * *

The sharing of significances provides the links except for which a ‘social’ event would not be experienced and would not exist for anyone.9

This conclusion is reinforced by the work social psychologists over the past 75 years. Their work established the core principles of group psychology. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, for example, explains how we invent justifications to relieve the discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs—like supporting a leader we know is lying. Solomon Asch's famous experiments on conformity showed that people will knowingly give a wrong answer just to conform with the group, proving that we are often more loyal to the tribe than to our own eyes.

Belonging to a Group is Critical to Mental Health

All of us have an innate need to connect with others, to belong, and to be accepted.10

We not only see what our group sees; we see what the norms of our group predispose us to see. We see what we must see to remain members of the group.

People in the MAGA Cult are no different from other humans and no different from you and me. They have a need to belong and to be accepted.

Donald Trump—like other charlatans, con men, scallywags, and scoundrels—has a special talent for exploiting this need as he also appeals to an adjacent need for security and order.

A significant number of humans in every society have always had a need for what George Lakoff called a “strict father” in charge of the government.11 It is comforting and reassuring. It relieves the stress and anxiety we experience from perceived chaos.

Alongside this need some have for an absolute ruler in the guise of a strict father, many relieve anxieties by subscribing to various, occasionally outlandish, conspiracy beliefs.12

Donald Trump—in his own malevolent, twisted, sick way—helps satisfy that need for millions of people.

Trump’s Lies are a Shibboleth of Acceptance and Belonging

Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible will recall that the Gileadites used the word “shibboleth” to identify who was a member of their group and who not. The Ephraimites were unable to form the “sh” sound and said “sibboleth” when asked to say the word, thereby giving themselves away as outsiders.13

So, when Trump says that the January 6 insurrectionists were patriot heroes, what game will members of the MAGA Cult see? They’ll see the game Trump wants them to see. And they will believe those who don’t see it—who can’t pronounce shibboleth—are the traitors, the outsiders, the non-Americans, the enemy.

And when Trump says that tariffs will lower prices and make everyone more prosperous, what game will the MAGA Cult see? Just as students at Princeton saw an excessively dirty and unfair and violent Dartmouth team, they’ll see sunshine, lollipops, and roses—because that’s what the Dear Leader wants them to see and because seeing what he wants them to see is the shibboleth that gives them entry into the club.

Last week, I argued that remaking democracy requires a laser focus on and listening to Working Americans. Let’s continue that theme with Graham Platner, candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine:

In this clip from a recent podcast interview with Chris Hayes, Graham Platner says:

My theory is this. There's a lot of nuanced conversations around a whole bunch of topics in this country that we will all get to expend an immense amount of energy talking about once everybody has Health Care. Once everybody has Health Care, I am happy to expend all of my wind talking about these other things until that day comes, until everybody can go to a hospital and get the care that they need to live the type of life that they want to live, to get the type of dignity and fulfillment out of life, once people don't have to worry about over 50% of their income going to rent, once we're past that, I'm happy to talk about all that. Right now, down here in the real world, those two things especially are destroying people's lives. And that's not hyperbole. It's not a talking point. It's not a campaign slogan. It's actually true, and people are feeling it. And they're going to be feeling it even worse very soon.

We won’t live in a free and fair democracy until everyone has the same access to health care regardless of income or wealth.

Publicly funded Universal Primary Care is a first step.

Get your free copy of Funding the Campaign for Universal Primary Care:

Download Funding the Campaign

Yesterday, I wrote that Democratic politicians must start standing up for Working Americans. (See It’s Working Americans, Stupid.)

So, today I’m urging all of us to get involved and remake the Democratic Party into a force for Working Americans.

Reorganizing meetings will be taking place all across the country this month. You can find out where the meeting for your town or precinct will be by visiting the website for your state’s Democratic Party. (In Vermont, for example, it’s Democratic Party Reorganization.)

Tonight, the National Democratic Party is holding its All In On 2025: Fall Elections National Organizing Kick-Off at 8:00 Eastern Time.

The best way to get Democratic leaders who work for Working Americans is to roll up your sleeves, go to the meeting, speak up forcefully for a Working Americans Agenda, and get yourself elected as a delegate or other official.

If you’ve wanted Democrats to resist the Trump Assault more forcefully and more effectively, now’s your time to help make that happen.

For the roughly ten million American families who lost their homes in the Great Recession, the crisis wasn't an abstract economic event—it was a betrayal. While banks got bailouts, homeowners got foreclosures.

This wasn't an accident; it was a choice. In his book, The Price of Peace, Zachary D. Carter recounts how Barack Obama persuaded Congressional Democrats to vote for the financial rescue package by promising to support legislation that would help homeowners caught up in the financial crisis avoid foreclosure. Obama also promised to support changes in the bankruptcy law that would allow homeowners to restructure mortgage debt the way the law allowed for small business owners, farmers, and large corporations.

Obama did not keep his promise.

After Obama’s inauguration, the White House unveiled what became the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which was a $75 billion plan intended to help families avoid foreclosure and restructure home loans. But, as Carter reports, only about $19 billion was ever used, and the Administration channeled it through banks, which found ways to glom on to most of the money without providing meaningful relief to homeowners. The bankruptcy legislation stalled in Congress. Carter says neither Obama nor anyone in the White House did much to achieve the objectives of HAMP or to vigorously push for passage of the bankruptcy law. It was not a political priority.1

Big Mistake. HUGE.

Arguably, the abandonment of middle-class homeowners coupled with the bailout of the super rich bankers (almost none of whom were held accountable for their profligate endangerment of the nation’s financial system) contributed to the breeding ground of resentment which was a major factor in the election of Donald Trump.

An estimated 6 to 10 million families lost their homes as a result of the Great Recession.2

But the abandonment of working homeowners in 2009 wasn't an isolated incident. It was the continuation of a political shift that began decades earlier, a turn away from the party's New Deal roots that became starkly evident during the fight over NAFTA. Arguably, NAFTA helped destroy numerous factories in communities across the South- and Midwest. (See my essay, What Now Part I: The Reckoning.)

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, ushered in this job-killing treaty as part of a turn to Neoliberalism championed by the Democratic Leadership Conference—a/k/a Democrats for the Leisure Class.3

NAFTA was strongly opposed by mainstream Democrats in Congress, and Ross Perot made a strong third-party showing in the presidential election of 1992 by constantly referring to the “giant sucking sound” of jobs that would be going to Mexico. Bernie Sanders spoke out against it over and over again.

But it passed. The rich did well. The Working Class was devastated.

A case could be made that since the election of Ronald Reagan, leading Democrats, including Barack Obama, have been more concerned with pleasing the rich and the superrich than with representing the interests of the people who historically have voted for Democrats.4

Robert Reich’s Prophecy

What we are witnessing today was foreseen and foretold by those who cared about working Americans in earlier decades.

On November 22, 1994, in a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council, then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich spoke about the drubbing the Democrats had taken in the recent mid-term elections. What had led middleclass voters to turn to the Republicans? Answer: Economic Injustice.

Reich explained: “The Great American Middle Class has not shared in the benefits of this recovery anymore than it shared in the economic growth of the 1980s.” Well-paying jobs were going to the well-educated, while the jobs available to those without college degrees paid poorly. The gap between the 5% overclass and the middle class had been growing since the late 1970’s.

“Last year alone, in 1993, the top 5th of American households took home a record 48% of the nation's total income and pocketed 72% of the entire growth in income. The top 5% in particular (I label it America’s overclass), they widened their lead on the rest of the nation last year, taking home 20% of the nation's total income and more than 40% of all of the growth in income.”

By 1994, many in America’s Middle Class had joined the ranks of the dispossessed, the insulted, the ignored, the abused, the downtrodden.

Prophetically, Reich said, “They voted for change in 1994 just as they voted for change in 1992, and they will do it again and again and again until that downward slide is reversed.”

They voted for change in 2004 and again in 2008. They got more pink slips.

They voted for change in 2016. The pink slips kept coming.

They voted for change in 2020. The Biden Administration engineered a massive investment in infrastructure and other job-producing programs—particularly in fly-over country. But those jobs would not start coming online until 2024. No one got the word out that the Democrats made it happen. And, in any event, many working Americans did not receive much, if any, benefit. Inflation from the Covid crisis remained high, especially in housing.

So, they voted for change again in 2024, precipitating what is shaping up to be a disaster for them, American democracy, and America, as Trump and the Project 2025 crowd wrecks government programs, decimates health insurance and food support, raises taxes on consumers through irrational tariffs, and cancels the infrastructure and manufacturing projects that would have brought money and jobs to economically depressed communities.

The downward slide continues.

Let’s Champion Working Americans

Elected Democrats must stop shilling for the Morgans, Goulds, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Fisks of our time. Perhaps we should make Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, required reading for every Democratic candidate for office. (Someone—why not you?—should go to campaign events and ask candidates: “Have you read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich?”)

In his 1994 speech, Robert Reich said, “Across America, I Hear the same refrain again and again and again coming from American workers. I have given this company the best years of my life and they dispose of me like a piece of Rusty machinery.”

That refrain is not new. It’s been around since the beginning of the industrial revolution and was memorialized musically by Utah Phillips in “All Used Up.”

But we must not treat this dismal state as God given.

In 1992, James Carville slapped a sign on the wall of the Clinton Campaign’s war room containing the phrase: “The Economy, Stupid,” which became known as “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”

Today, we should create billboards everywhere saying: “It’s Working Americans, Stupid.”

Stand Up and Speak Out

Here is the fundamental question for the Democratic Party: What is the point of power if it isn't used for the people who grant it?

Seriously. How will the lives of the vast majority of Americans change if elected Democrats continue competing with Republicans for the blessing of Jamie Dimon, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Peter Thiel, while the interests of everyone else are screwed?

This is not a winning strategy; it is a moral surrender.

The program that will save American democracy is the one that saves Americans from the avarice of the super-rich. It requires a vision inspired by the New Deal—a massive commitment to building homes, creating jobs, and reversing the obscene inequality that has crushed working families for decades. It means standing with the employee being discarded "like a piece of rusty machinery," not with the executive who signed the pink slip.

If current Democratic officeholders cannot or will not lead this charge, then we must find people who will.

Don't stand on the sidelines. Don't wait to be asked.

Find the local candidates and groups who are champions for economic justice. If no one fits that description, recruit them. Or run for office yourself. The time to simply vote for change is over.

Now is the time to build the movement that makes change inevitable. Stand up for Working Americans in your local Democratic Party organization. Go to your precinct’s reorganizing meeting this month and speak up for Working Americans. (Find out about your state here.)

Join a local Indivisible group. Or start one yourself. Make a difference.

The New York Times Spelling Bee is both a pleasant daily mental exercise and, for those who visit the comments section, a warm and supportive community called the Bee Hive.

The other day, “hobo” was one of the available words in the Bee, which prompted Hopeful in West Virginia to share the following story:

When I was about six, our family moved from a tiny house to a larger one right next to the railroad tracks. It sat on the biggest lot in the neighborhood and it had been planted with wonderful things: an orchard of fruit trees, berries of all kinds, including a good-sized raspberry patch, and there was a large garden spot.

My parents made good use of every bit of that ground. They were up at dawn all summer long, working in the garden, canning hundreds of bottles of vegetables, fruit, jam, sauces of every kind. They dug a root cellar and filled it with vegetables that we ate all winter and shared with others.

Hobos stopped by our house, mostly in the summer, and my parents greeted them like royalty. They seated them at the picnic table in the shade and put a glorious feast before them. When they had finished eating and were getting ready to leave, my father told them he hoped they would come back while they were in the area, and please bring other hobos who might be in the "jungle" which was in an area near the tracks about a half-mile from us.

One day one of the men told us that in the jungle there was signage that directed them to our house. The sign said we were people who would be good to them. My heart swelled with joy when he said that. It was good to know that hungry people could easily find us. To my parents, these men were royalty. Every one a son of God, my father said.

The Hive voted that comment to the top of the list by recommending it over 2,000 times.

Matthew portrays Jesus as telling a story about the righteous who will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven when they stand before the King: “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.”

The righteous ask when did they ever do these things to the Son of Man, to which the King responds: “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25:40)

Jesus was a Jew, steeped in the teachings of the Hebrew Bible (the Tenakh), which contains numerous commands and narratives stressing the importance of treating sojourners and strangers with kindness, fairness, and love.1

Now, more than ever, we need to give voice to this ancient value of hospitality to all.2

Here are the lyrics:

Well, if you're looking for purpose in

the current circus, if you're seeking

respect and attention, if you're in need

of a gig that'll help you feel big, come

with me. Put some folks in detention.

Just last week was kind of rough. I put

a kid in cuffs and zip tied a woman to a

van. We can sneak around town hunting

working folks down. I hear they get a

great benefit plan. Join ICE. Boy, ain't

it nice? Join ICE. Take my advice. If

you're lacking control and authority,

come with me and hunt down minorities.

Join ICE.

Well, I failed the academy. The cops

weren't having me. The army didn't sound

that fun, so I found me a paramililitary

operation that was keen to hand me a

gun. See, I got picked on in school. I

never felt that cool. There's a hole in

my soul that just rages. All the women

turned me down. They told me I was a

clown. Well, won't you look at me now?

I'm putting folks in cages at ICE. They

got great hours. Join ICE for respect

and power. They got a sign on bonus of

50 grand. They're in need of you needing

to feel like a man. Join ICE.

Join ICE.

Go to Jesse’s channel to hear more of his work. Pass it on.

The Poor Have Only Themselves to Blame

One my persistent memories from reading The Grapes of Wrath is of dirt-poor Oakies readily sharing what little they had with those even worse off than themselves. Social scientists have studied this prosocial behavior, concluding that those with less give more.1

The corollary is that the more we have, the less we give. As a class, the rich are not only less generous but often tightfisted and stingy.2

That may be a human propensity, but in the United States we also have a distinct hostility toward the poor. The poor, by virtue of being poor, are unworthy. If they weren’t unworthy, so the logic goes, they wouldn’t be poor.

Where does this belief come from?

Are There No Workhouses?

The cultural belief that worldly success is a sign of divine favor—and failure a sign of rejection—has roots in 16th-century Calvinism as it evolved into 17th-century English Puritanism. As Max Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the Calvinist doctrine of predestination taught that only a predetermined elect would be saved, while the rest were damned. Because no one could know their fate with certainty, a deep “salvation anxiety” became widespread. To cope, believers (encouraged by preachers) sought signs of election in their worldly lives—especially in disciplined work and economic success.3

A corollary belief emerged over time that the poor are responsible for their own poverty—indeed, have been condemned to such by God. It is a convenient belief—if you are well off.

This belief underlies Ebeneezer Scrooge’s dismissal of the men collecting alms for the poor at Christmas: “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”

A blame-the-poor complex of cultural beliefs works against efforts to mitigate or reduce poverty—particularly through government programs.

The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Budget Bill

In The Four Ugliest Points About the Big Beautiful Bill, Jacob S. Hacker and Patrick Sullivan present four ways in which the Republican Budget Bill will make wealth inequality worse and increase the burden on the poor.

Millions of Americans believe that the Scrooge-like provisions of the Republican Budget Bill will rightly deprive up to 15 million people of health insurance and millions of nutrition assistance. It is morally wrong to use the government to help the poor. If God didn’t want them to be poor, they wouldn’t be poor.

The Republicans’ Budget Bill, therefore, can be seen as an amalgam of different strains of anti-government, anti-poor cultural beliefs. The assault on government support for Medicaid, SNAP, and other anti-poverty programs can be understood, not merely or even primarily as cost-saving measures. (After all, with the tax give aways to the super rich, they won’t balance the budget.) Rather, this assault furthers the view that prisons and workhouses are the correct, in fact generous, response to poverty.

After a constituent pointed out the deadly effects of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts, Senator Joni Ernst said, “Well, we all are going to die.” Ernst’s remark brings to mind Scrooge’s callous response to the remark that many would rather die than go to the workhouses: “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Not a Time for Bystanders

America finds itself in a moment of constitutional decision. Will we continue to advance toward a society of egalitarian solidarity, in which the poor are housed, the naked clothed, the weak lifted up, and the lame walk? Or will we trod the broad path of meanness, cruelty, and disdain for the poor and misfortunate that has infected our culture for hundreds of years?

In this hour of crisis, those who support a shared sense of egalitarian solidarity must rally around the better angels of our nature and oppose the willful oppression of the poor and the engorgement of the rich through the Budget Bill.

Join an Indivisible Group or form one yourself. Sign up with Third Act. Circulate petitions on Move On. Get involved.

Help bring about a more perfect union that promotes the general welfare and secures the Blessings of Liberty to all.