SHORT-TERM STRATEGIES
There are things we can do to bring immediate relief to American families, many of whom are currently getting crushed. But we have to be careful here.
If you ever brainstorm ideas for financial relief with many Democrats, you often hear things thrown around like Guaranteed Annual Income or Universal Basic Income (UBI), price controls/ freezes, free money for down payments, and proposals like the mayor of NYC Zohran Mamdani’s network of government-run grocery stores.
Even though these ideas sound like music to the ears of weary voters on the campaign trail, there are two problems with them. The first is they often aren’t generally feasible – or effective – long-term.
For example, although research has found benefits from cash transfers, particularly in reducing material hardship and improving health and educational outcomes, two randomized experiments suggest that simply increasing a family’s disposable income – even by as much as $1,000 a month – does not necessarily produce measurable improvements in children’s cognitive, behavioral, or educational development.
Recent randomized experiments have raised questions about how much unconditional cash payments, by themselves, improve children’s development. In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, researchers studying Baby’s First Years examined a randomized trial in which low-income mothers received either $333 or $20 a month beginning shortly after the birth of their child. After four years, the researchers found no statistically significant effects on any of four preregistered primary measures of child development – language, executive function, social-emotional problems, and high-frequency brain activity – or on three secondary measures, including pre-literacy skills and reported developmental diagnoses.
The results were startling enough that Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine and one of the study’s authors, reportedly said, “I was very surprised – we were all very surprised. The money did not make a difference.”
A separate randomized experiment conducted by the nonprofit OpenResearch produced similarly sobering results despite providing substantially more money. In that study, 1,000 lower-income Americans received $1,000 a month for three years, while a control group received $50 a month. Parents who received the larger payments spent more on their children and showed some improvements in parenting practices, but researchers found little evidence that the additional income translated into better outcomes for the children themselves. The payments produced no meaningful improvement in most educational outcomes measured through school records, nor in measures of the home environment, food security, homelessness exposure, or parental satisfaction. Researchers concluded that although the payments changed some parental behaviors and investments, those changes “did not translate into measurable improvements in children’s academic or parent-reported behavioral outcomes in the short run.”
< Note: Guaranteed annual income and universal basic income should not be confused with the Child Tax Credit. Although the programs share some characteristics – particularly when the credit is made fully refundable – the Child Tax Credit is specifically targeted at families raising children and has a well-established record of increasing their disposable income and reducing measured child poverty. The expanded credit in 2021, for example, helped lift millions of children above the poverty line. That does not necessarily mean the credit produces large improvements in children’s cognitive or behavioral development, but there is strong evidence that it accomplishes its more immediate objective: reducing the number of children living in poverty. There are several reasons why the CTC appears to be more successful than the $1,000-a-month OpenResearch experiment, even though both involve giving families cash, including targeting, family composition, benefit design, outcome selection, and the difference between alleviating poverty and changing child development. >
Another example of a plan that sounds like a nice thing to do for people but has the potential for huge negative unintended consequences is one like Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic nominee for president, proposed in the 2024 election. A key part of the plan was to provide first-time home buyers with $25,000 in down-payment assistance. The Harris campaign estimated that four million homebuyers would be eligible, and the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the program would cost around $100 billion over four years.
Again, on the surface, this sounds like a super helpful thing to do for people. However, it would most certainly lead to higher home prices in the end because subsidizing buyers also increases their purchasing power… and we know that one of the most basic laws of supply and demand is that an increase in demand without a corresponding increase in supply will result in higher prices.
To be fair, Harris’s proposal did attempt to also address the supply side. Her plan called for facilitating the construction of three million additional homes over four years through measures that included tax incentives for builders of starter homes, an expansion of affordable-housing tax credits, a $40 billion housing innovation fund, efforts to reduce regulatory barriers, and the use of some federal land for housing. But many of those ideas would require congressional approval or action by state and local governments, and important implementation details remained elusive. This matters A LOT because purchasing power can reach the market much faster than millions of new homes can be permitted, financed and built.
Meanwhile, Kansas City poured almost $18 million of taxpayer money into the city-backed Sun Fresh grocery store at 31st Street and Prospect Avenue only to have it close in August 2025 after ten years. Two reasons given for the closure were crime and operational challenges – both of which contributed to the store’s unsustainable financial losses
“It’s a deep, deep, deep hole,” said Emmet Pierson Jr., President and CEO of Community Builders of Kansas City, the nonprofit that ran the store – noting that the store was far from breaking even, “even with all this city money.” This should come as no surprise because, in the best of circumstances, grocery stores are high-volume, low-margin businesses.
Community Builders continues to operate another Sun Fresh on Blue Parkway in Kansas City, but that store has shown signs of difficulty as well. In April 2026, local television station KSHB reported noticeably empty shelves and reduced inventory at the store, prompting concerns about its future. Community Builders said the store was not closing and described the situation as a transition but provided few details.
In Florida, Baldwin Market – a town-owned grocery store that opened in 2019 when Baldwin’s only for-profit grocery store closed – was forced to shut its doors because the financial losses were unsustainable. Although the city never intended to make a profit, they needed to at least breakeven – but the losses continued to be significant (in FY2021 there was a $178,000 shortfall and in FY2022 that number was $171,000).
More recently, after eight years and over $8 million spent by the citizens of Madison, Wisconsin, Maurer’s Urban Market opened in the Bay Creek neighborhood. Even though Maurer’s was developed as a measure to prevent a “food desert,” the store ended up being right across the street from another grocery store and within a mile of three others.
Herein lies the paradox of things like price controls/freezes, government-run grocery stores, and “free” money for down payments. Things like food and rent are never free. Just because something is paid for and/or operated by state or federal governments doesn’t mean that we aren’t still paying for them. We absolutely are – because we are the state and federal governments. The costs of food and rent don’t just magically disappear. The ways we pay for them are just shifted around.
Solutions like Guaranteed Annual Income and government-owned grocery stores not only do nothing more than shift costs around, but they also prolong and exacerbate our original problem… digging our hole even deeper. Take price “freezes,” for example. On the 2025/6 campaign trail, Democrats promised to freeze prices on everything from rent to electricity rates. Without question, these things could bring temporary financial relief.
But the key word here is temporary. These interventions cannot possibly go on forever, so we are just kicking the can down the road AGAIN! Worse, while we buy ourselves nine to twelve months of relief, we are also distorting markets.
Markets will get jammed up even more because companies will be using fuzzy data to make decisions on where to concentrate goods and services. Prices are signals. They tell producers where goods and services are scarce, where demand is increasing, and where additional investment may be profitable. Suppressing those signals can distort decisions about where businesses invest and expand.
And when a price ceiling is held below the cost necessary to provide adequate supply, the consequences can become more serious. Producers have less incentive to expand capacity, while landlords and utilities may have less money or incentive to invest in maintenance and improvements. Over time, supply can fall short of demand – leading to shortages, deteriorating quality, waiting lists, or other forms of rationing.
And don’t be fooled. With a $40 trillion debt, “taxing the rich” is no longer enough. Not by a long shot.
“Government-paid-for” anything at this point in our financial crisis is nothing more than politicians trying to continue the party – where the music doesn’t stop on their watch – and we can’t keep doing it. Our only choice at this point is an across-the-board hard correction, and that means that we can’t keep putting Band-Aids over gaping wounds.
That’s one reason why the policy agenda embraced by many candidates endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is so concerning.
These days, it sometimes feels like Socialism is on the rise in America. Even though Joe Biden won the 2020 Democratic presidential primary – a feat only achieved because establishment lions (namely South Carolina congressman Jim Clyburn) stepped in when far left-wingers Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren moved to frontrunner status – progressives had already been on somewhat of a roll electorally and had already been successful in heavily influencing the Democratic Party’s platform.
Since becoming members of Congress in 2019, “The Squad” and its three highest-profile members – Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) – had already managed to push the Democratic House leadership to the left. Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the DSA, even nominated self-described democratic socialist Bernie Sanders to be president at the 2020 Democratic National Convention, even though Joe Biden had the nomination sewn up. As a conciliation prize, Senator Sanders soon took the reins of the powerful Budget Committee, which has enormous influence over tax and spending thanks to a budget mechanism called reconciliation, which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority.
Now, there is renewed enthusiasm among the Democratic Party’s progressive ranks following a string of victories by democratic-socialist candidates. In November 2025, Zohran Mamdani – a self-described democratic socialist – defeated former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani, and Republican Curtis Sliwa to become mayor of New York City. Seattle is also now led by a self-described democratic socialist, Mayor Katie Wilson. And in June 2026, democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George won the Democratic primary for mayor of Washington, D.C., positioning her to become the city’s next mayor if she wins the November general election.
The trend continued during the 2026 primary season. In Colorado, democratic socialist Melat Kiros defeated longtime U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette in the Democratic primary for the Denver-based 1st Congressional District. In Pennsylvania, democratic socialist Chris Rabb won the Democratic nomination for the open 3rd Congressional District. In Michigan, progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in a closely watched and expensive Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.
All that said, regardless of how many people like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Zohran Mamdani periodically emerge, the reality is that America’s economic system is capitalism. Period. This is a fact that isn’t going to change and for this we should be exceedingly grateful. As the old saying goes, capitalism is the worst kind of economy until you try all the rest.
It’s our belief that those on the far-left have gotten their hopes up – and that the modern-day conception of “socialism” in the United States has gotten twisted – because 1) the true definition of socialism has been completely watered down, together with 2) a few interesting public polls.
Way back in 2019, a Harris Poll revealed that 49.6 percent of Millennials and Gen Z-ers agreed with the statement: “I prefer living in a socialist country;” 73.2 percent agreed with the statement: “Government should provide universal health care” and 67.1 percent agreed with the statement: “Government should provide tuition-free college.” By March 2025, a survey by the Cato Institute and YouGov showed 62 percent of our fellow citizens aged 18–29 say they hold a “favorable view” of socialism and 34 percent said the same of communism.
A Gallup poll released in September 2025 found that Americans were still more positive toward capitalism than socialism, but the 54 percent of Americans who viewed capitalism favorably had fallen from 60 percent in 2021. While Americans felt more negative (57 percent) than positive (39 percent) toward socialism, 66 percent of Democrats told Gallup they viewed socialism favorably, while 42 percent said the same of capitalism.
A CNN/SSRS poll issued in August 2026 reported 34 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults identify as “democratic socialists.”
Let’s be clear: These polls are measuring what we like to call sunny-side-up socialism, not what true socialism actually is. A perfect example of this perversion of socialism is when Bernie Sanders points to Denmark as an example of his brand of socialism … which is strange because Denmark is not a socialist country.
Even the 25th Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen rejected Bernie’s definition when he remarked, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.
Aha! There it is. These polls are not measuring what Americans think of socialism à la Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao Zedong. Rather, the term has come to mean something entirely different to many Americans. When “socialism” is mentioned in America today, it is more about the view/approach one takes to the welfare state, not whether the government should have complete control over our lives.
In our minds, the American view/approach to the welfare state is a spectrum: On the far end of one side there is zero help for citizens. Sink or swim, everyone is pretty much on their own. On the far end of the other side everything is provided to citizens for basically free. Where the United States should land on that spectrum is an entirely different conversation, but the term “socialism” should not be a part of this conversation regardless of who is having it.
The fact is that Merriam-Webster defines socialism this way: “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”
...and that is just not going to happen in the United States of America. Period. Believe us, the polls we referenced earlier would look far different if the question asked was: “Do you agree with this statement: I want the United States government to take all of my private property from me, tax me at a rate of 90 percent, and then be completely in charge of running every single thing about my life.”
If that were the alternative, we imagine most of us would just work to improve the system we’ve already got! : )
One reason socialism resonates during difficult times is that it offers a hopeful and compelling story. While capitalism can appear unfair – or even brutal – to people struggling to get ahead, socialism presents an appealing alternative: a society with less inequality, greater economic security, and a stronger sense that everyone will share in the nation’s prosperity. At its most idealistic, the vision can sound almost utopian.
But we deeply believe the 1787 Plan of Action offers an equally hopeful story – with a more realistic path to achieving it. As we navigate the difficult correction ahead, which at times may be painful, it will help to remember what we are fighting for. Our overriding goal is simple: To restore the dream that is America.
The American Dream is real. Americans are among the most dynamic and innovative people in the world. We are courageous and confident. We possess conviction, an extraordinary capacity to adapt, and an enduring determination to build something better.
Americans strive. Americans thrive. Americans believe.
And that belief – in ourselves, in one another, and in the possibilities of this country – is ultimately what we are fighting to restore.