Search Demos.org

One of the most troubling economic facts of the past few years is that many of the very same people who helped crash the economy saw their fortunes rebound the fastest after the financial crisis of 2008. Meanwhile, the innocent bystanders who had nothing to do with the financial crash -- e.g., most households -- have still not fully recovered at all.

The unevenness and unfairness of the recovery has long been apparent -- from news of record corporate profits to surges in stock values to anecdotal reports of a big uptick in luxury spending.

Here's a trend worth noting on International Women's Day: In just the past year, women leaders have taken the helm at four national think tanks -- changing the gender landscape of what has been, traditionally, a male-dominated sector.

Corporations are not inherently bad, but they have strong incentives to behave badly to increase their profits and stock value. The free market, which tends to push companies to behave positively when it comes to innovation, price, and customer service, often offers few counter-weights to the strong incentives which exist to cut corners ethically and take huge risks.

The progressive policy world does a great job of spotlighting the economic hardships of low- and moderate-income Americans, but I've long noticed a big gap in all this work: An appreciation of how much the volatility in energy prices impacts these struggling households.

As anticipation rises about how the Supreme Court will rule on the individual mandate, a key element of Obama's healthcare reform, it is worth reflecting on how ironic it is that the individual mandate has emerged as such a polarizing issue. At least four ironies come to mind.

It was just a few days ago that Goldman Sachs insider Greg Smith reminded us of an essential truth about today's financial services sector: It puts its own interests above those of its clients and, as a result, routinely misleads and exploits those who entrust investment firms and advisors with their financial future.

The conventional wisdom in some quarters is that Hollywood movie stars who get involved in politics are light-weights and dilettantes who have no business holding forth on public affairs. Today's arrest of George Clooney at the Sudanese embassy, in a protest about Darfur, no doubt, is inciting some of the usual tongue clucking.

Progressives are endlessly disappointed by opinion polls that show that a large majority of Americans don't trust government. Indeed, public trust in government is now at a historic low.

As the Supreme Court takes up the Affordable Care Act and its most controversial provision, the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, legal analysts are busily debating how the ruling might go -- looking back decades for precedents.

Few trends in human history have been more environmentally destructive than the rise of America's car culture starting in the 20th century. Americans drive their cars more than people in any other country and drive less fuel-efficient cars. There are 808 cars in the United States for every 1000 people, a rate 50 percent higher than most European countries.

The most common critique of Citizens United is that it allows corporations to wield ever greater influence in our democracy -- on top of the considerable power business already had before the Supreme Court decision in 2010. More recently, during the Republican primary, critics of Citizens United have spotlighted how the ruling gives outsized influence to wealthy individuals -- allowing a handful of billionaires like Sheldon Adelson to decide which candidates live or die on the campaign trail.

State attorneys general are directly elected by voters in nearly every state and if politics made sense, the 26 AGs that have filed suit against Obamacare would be booted out by voters. Why? Because these AGs represent states that stand to disproportionately benefit from the law. Meanwhile, many AGs from states that won't see big benefits -- but will foot much of the bill for the law -- are sitting on the sidelines.

State attorneys general are directly elected by voters in nearly every state and if politics made sense, the 26 AGs that have filed suit against Obamacare would be booted out by voters. Why? Because these AGs represent states that stand to disproportionately benefit from the law. Meanwhile, many AGs from states that won't see big benefits -- but will foot much of the bill for the law -- are sitting on the sidelines.

One core assumption of political economy, going back to Marx, is that the owners of capital will not do anything that benefit workers unless their hand is forced -- either by labor unions or government. When it comes to who gets what under capitalism, the logic goes, raw power is all that counts.

The “Buffett Rule” proposed by President Obama and now being considered by the Senate would be an important symbolic step toward a fairer tax system. By instituting a minimum tax on very high earners, it would advance the principle of progressive taxation and reform the tax code in an overdue way.

Regulation is such a dirty word these days that it's easy to forget what a big difference it can make in the lives of ordinary people.

Take, for instance, the Federal government's successful push to ban refund anticipation loans.

Last week, the House Agriculture Committee voted to drastically cut spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by over $33 billion. It's an extreme, absurd, dangerous thing to do, cutting an already underfunded program that is, as Feeding America put it, "one of the nation's most critical, remaining safety net."

The firsthand account of a veteran who was turned away from the polls in Pennsylvania because of a photo ID law.