Explore More

Joblessness imposes steep costs on millions of unemployed workers and their families, requiring households to continue meeting basic expenses without their former income.

Once upon a time, a few decades ago, members of the U.S. Senate spent a fair amount of time together and got to know each other personally. They were more likely to stick around Washington on the weekends, and during breaks, and socialized together more often with their families. Once upon a time

What would you do if you were laid off from a job? While you looked for a new position, you’d likely cut expenses as much as possible and begin drawing on any savings you have to pay the bills you can’t avoid. As time went on, you might turn to family, friends, and community institutions for

Last year, in the midst of the holiday season, I pointed out that 90 percent of households have at least one unused item lying around and 70 percent have unused electronic items. It makes more fiscal and environmental sense to just not buy something, rather than buy it and not use it. Beyond that

There is a brand new housing crisis looming on the horizon and none of the financial or foreclosure reforms being considered get anywhere close to solving it.

The Center for Responsive Politics compiles data on the 50 top interest groups giving money to Congress. Near the top of the 2012 list are the usual suspects—finance, insurance, real estate, and Big Oil. Near the bottom are casinos and the building materials industry (along with "Women's Issues.")

Extending the partial payroll tax holiday was not part of President Obama's most recent fiscal cliff offer, delivered this week, and that needs to change.

Women remain a scarcity in the top rungs of Corporate America. Females held only 14.3 percent of executive officer positions at Fortune 500 companies in 2012, a smidge more than in 2011, according to 2012 Catalyst Census, a report from nonprofit Catalyst, which promotes women in business. Women at

President Obama's most recent fiscal cliff offer would cut Social Security benefits by changing how that program calculates cost-of-living increases. This is a bad idea, for reasons I'll get to. But the bigger problem is that Social Security doesn't have anything to do with current budget deficits

In a properly working economy, a booming business would be good for everyone involved in building that business: shareholders, executives, and workers. In a broken and dysfunctional economy, the shareholders and executives would get richer and richer while the workers lived in poverty.