We Can Do Better

Artificial intelligence (AI) is built on our collective work product and there is widespread concern over its potential impact on society. So Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed legislation that would give the U.S. people a 50% ownership stake in the biggest AI companies. 

That way, we can collectively control the technology’s use and devote the financial benefit from its growth to meet human needs. Some estimates are that the government’s immediate gain for this ownership stake would be $1 trillion.

Matt Bruenig, an expert in sovereign wealth funds like the one proposed by Sanders, joins the show this week. Matt is the founder and president of People’s Policy Project, and consulted on the creation of the Sanders AI plan.

Matt shares with us insights from his recent article discussing how the proposed AI wealth fund compares to programs like the legendary Alaska Permanent Fund and major international sovereign funds like Norway’s. Matt’s own plan for a “Social Wealth Fund for America,” which is even broader than Sanders’ plan, contemplates annual payments to all residents. That is how the Alaska Permanent Fund operates, and it does decrease both inequality and poverty. 

But the AI funds could also be used to pay for social programs. New Mexico’s sovereign wealth fund pays for the state’s groundbreaking universal child care program, for example. Norway’s wealth funds help the nation afford its “universal assistance state,” covering healthcare and child care and other basic needs for all.  

As our podcast title insists, we can do far better in addressing poverty and inequality. But we will need to spend money to get there. The U.S. public sharing the AI wealth, especially when that wealth is generated by technology built on our collective labor, can be a big part of the solution.

When it comes to healthcare, our U.S. system’s inefficiencies and emphasis on profiteering have created a remarkable, tragic combination: we pay historic-level, world-leading sums of money on healthcare–$6 trillion per year–while enduring some of the world’s worst coverage and health outcomes.    

Our guest this week, Jasmine Ruddy of National Nurses United, explains to us why our healthcare system is broken and why NNU–the largest union of registered nurses in U.S. history–supports a single-payer Medicare for All solution.Importantly, Jasmine also shares with why Medicare for All is winnable in the near future–a victory that would make U.S. history and save or improve millions of American lives.  

The big winners in the current U.S. healthcare system are for-profit health insurance corporations and for-profit monopoly-protected pharmaceutical corporations. Meanwhile, nearly 27 million Americans go without health insurance.Another 46 million are underinsured, meaning they struggle to afford deductibles and then far too often find that their insurers refuse to pay for prescribed care and procedures. Four in ten U.S. adults fail to take prescriptions, go without recommended care, or do not see a doctor even when sick. 

These gaps carry consequences. Every year, tens of thousands of Americans die preventable deaths due to inability to afford care. Over 40% of U.S. adults report carrying debt caused by medical or dental bills. These outcomes are unthinkable in other nations with resources similar to those possessed by the U.S.

Ironically, the most promising aspect of the U.S. healthcare system is contained within the overall dismal numbers. The nation already spends more than enough on healthcare to afford universal, comprehensive coverage and far better health outcomes. Proposals for a single-payer U.S. healthcare system, often referred to as Medicare for All, would replace private health insurance companies with public financing of health care.  

Even as it ensures access to all medically necessary services—including dental and vision needs and prescription drugs—multiple studies show the efficiencies and profit-avoidance of Medicare for All would allow the program to cost hundreds of billions less per year than the U.S.’s current system. So it is not surprising that, as Jasmine  a healthy majority of Americans support a single-payer system like Medicare for All. 

In this episode, we discuss the path to making that a reality–ideally, within the next two and a half years.

Democratic socialism is certainly  having a moment in U.S. politics. Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) membership is at record levels. DSA- aligned candidates like Zohran Mamdani in New York, Katie Wilson in Seattle, Abdul El-Sayed el-say-ed in Michigan, etc. are building on the success of office holders like Bernie Sanders and Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There will likely be a growing number of socialist members of Congress next year..

At the same time, the pushback is fierce. President Trump says democratic socialists pose a bigger threat to the U.S. than world wars or September 11th.

A lot of Baby Boomers share Trump’s suspicions. Yet the Gen-Z generation holds majority-favorable views of socialism.

So, in this episode, our Boomer host and Gen-Z producer answer each other’s questions about how we and our generational peers see this movement of democratic socialism in the U.S., and the prospects for continued democratic socialist success. 

“What is most important is not who we worship Sunday morning, it is who we stand up for on Monday morning,” says Rev. David W. Greene, Sr.

Religion has a huge impact on our U.S. society. Some of that impact comes directly through the tens of millions of people who are actively engaged in congregations. And some of the impact is felt indirectly through the enormous influence that religious traditions and values have on our society. That impact is particularly strong in deciding how we should be treating our neighbors who struggle with housing, healthcare, food, and safety.

But we also know that, if misused, religion can be a polarizing force: politically, racially, economically.

Can we have the good while avoiding the bad? This week’s guests on We Can Do Better prove the answer is yes. They show that our shared priorities to love our neighbor can serve as the foundation for working together, not just across different faith traditions but also alongside those who do not embrace religion at all.

Rev. Greene is the Senior Pastor of Second Baptist Church, Purpose of Life Ministries, Indianapolis, and president of the legendary civil rights organization Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis. He joins Rabbi Dr. Aaron Spiegel, Executive Director/President of the Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance to talk about how they find common ground to serve those in need, while also demanding justice for people who are homeless or facing eviction, and living without healthcare and other essential needs. 

Ray Madoff teaches tax law at Boston College Law School and is the author of The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy, named a Best Book of 2025 by The New Yorker. Ray has spoken about this important book in all kinds of venues, including the New York Times and NPR podcasts, and has written about this topic for The Atlantic.

In our conversation for We Can Do Better, we talk about why Ray says that, after the Constitution, the tax code is the single most important document affecting American lives. She explains how the country has become a land of two sets of people: overburdened workers shouldering the cost of running the country and an American aristocracy of wealth and power who are allowed to dodge their tax responsibilities.

How is this “American Aristocracy” pulling this off? By building their wealth through stock and property, which they can avoid paying taxes on, instead of wages, which are subject to tax. “Salaries are for suckers,” Ray tells us.

That leaves our eviction court clients and the rest of us working “suckers” paying far more than our fair share, especially in payroll taxes. Ray breaks down the lie behind the oft- repeated line, by Jeff Bezos and others, that the wealthiest 1% of Americans are paying 40% of the taxes while the bottom 40% are paying none.

That is just the latest falsehood used to hoard wealth. In the 1990’s the nation’s richest families, hoping to inherit billions tax-free, launched a political and PR campaign claiming falsely that family farms and businesses were at risk by taxes on inheritances. They succeeded in labeling our country’s estate tax a “death tax,” and now rake in tax-free wealth that they did nothing to earn.

But we can do better. Ray explains to us how we accomplish that, including her counter-intuitive plan to fix the estate tax by eliminating it. Instead, we will require inheritors of great fortunes to pay taxes on their windfalls–just like the rest of us pay taxes on any income we receive.

Last week, on NBC’s Meet the Press, our new U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche was asked “Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?”

His reply? “ No, I’m not going to pledge that.”

Once again, the Trump administration does us a favor. It unmasks the inherent corruption that had been more politely hidden by previous presidents.

As more fully developed in a Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy article I researched and wrote back in 2010, called Torture, Impunity, and the Need for Independent Prosecutorial Oversight of the Executive Branch, our current system de facto grants impunity for the President of the United States. Because the President gets to appoint–and fire at any time– the only person who can initiate federal prosecutions: the Attorney General, the head of the Justice Department.

The fox is guarding the henhouse.

But we can fix that.

Specifically, we can independently elect our Attorney General.

An independently elected prosecutor is already the dominant model in local communities, where 95% of criminal cases are filed and adjudicated. Mayors don’t have control over the person and agency who might file criminal charges against them. State-level attorneys general are also usually elected, so they can similarly hold governors accountable, as can local prosecutors.

At the federal level, it seems very possible that, given our divided electorate, we could be electing a president from one party and an Attorney General from a different party. We have a lot of split ticket voters, and we like putting guardrails around our top leaders.

How do we do this? Likely through a constitutional amendment of Article II, § 3 which states the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

But that is not fully settled. The framers did not specifically address the question of whether the Attorney General would be appointed by the President. And in fact they were very concerned about putting checks on the power of any one branch of government. And the first Congress did not see presidential control of federal prosecutions as a constitutional mandate.

So there is an argument that we may not need a constitutional amendment. And there are some other anti-impunity options explored in the article, including a strong independent counsel law.

But even if a constitutional amendment proves necessary, it is worth it . We need to root out the inherent corruption in our system, where at the highest level of government the fox pretends to guard the henhouse.

Many of the people we see in eviction court losing their homes are working long hours at difficult jobs. But they work in retail, the home healthcare sector, in food service work, etc.--where their employers do not pay them wages high enough to keep themselves housed. 

So that is why we welcome this week to We Can Do Better David Cooper of the Economic Policy Institute. EPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank working for the last 30 years to counter rising inequality, low wages and weak benefits for working people.  

David shares with us how, at a time when the national minimum wage is stagnant at a shameful sub-living wage of $7.25 per hour, dozens of states and localities are raising the wage themselves, including many this year alone. Among the 30 states with higher wages are several “red” states, reflecting the strong bipartisan public support for living wages for all workers. 

David shares with us the reams of evidence countering the false claims that increased wages lead to widespread jobs losses and sharply higher prices. We also discuss the ripple effects of higher minimum wages on public health and safety, including protecting our clients and others from domestic violence. 

David tells us why President Trump’s no taxes on tips/overtime changes are “gimmicks,” filled with false promises that usually do not meaningfully help those workers. What would help those workers is guaranteeing that their hard work meets the needs of their households for rent, utility, food, and other necessities. What is needed is a long-overdue national minimum wage increase. 

Last November, New Mexico became the first state in the country to launch free, universal child care for children from birth through age 13, regardless of household income. The program is exactly what working parents have been hoping for: there are no income limits, no copays, and families can choose the care that works best for them, including centers, home-based providers, language immersion or faith-based programs, and care during evenings or weekends.

Jacob Vigil, legislative director for New Mexico Voices for Children, one of the leading advocates for this remarkable program, joins We Can Do Better this week.

We talk about the broad coalition that fueled the campaign to create and implement universal childcare, and the importance of identifying a funding source. Jacob discusses the rock-solid science behind the value of high-quality early childhood education and care, the self-interest of the business community in having accessible child care, and the importance of ensuring that child care workers are well-trained and well-compensated.

Just as universal national benefits like Social Security and Medicare have proven to be more politically durable than means-tested benefits, it is hoped that universal childcare in New Mexico is creating its own broad constituency–one that can be replicated in states across the country.

Earlier this month, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law. It is the first substantial housing bill to pass Congress in decades, and it is . . . OK. 

In this episode, Jack and Fran discuss how the new law, like so many other reforms aimed at our housing crisis, focuses on increasing the supply of housing. Specifically, the Road to Housing Act will make it easier to get financing and construct new housing. 

Which is fine. 

But it won’t do much for the people we see in eviction court, and the millions of others who simply do not make enough money to afford market-rate housing. 

Our nation’s leading housing experts  have been making this point for years.  As the title of a 2019 article by Alan Mallach, senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, pointed out, “Rents Will Only Go So Low, No Matter How Much We Build.”

Not that building more housing is a bad thing: we have an aging housing stock and more supply will lower the price of housing in many areas for some middle-income people. But, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities insisted last year, “Our Response to the Housing Crisis Must Include Rental Assistance, Not Just More Supply.”

That is because 7 million households with income below the poverty line are paying more than half their income in rent: their recommended monthly housing cost is just $224 per month. No construction boom will lead to a for-profit landlord agreeing to anything close to that amount. Our clients living with disabilities and thus limited to a Supplemental Security Income check, face market rent that is more than 100% of their income. The same is true for many of our low-wage working clients, especially parents with young children. 

So we need more and better subsidized housing, especially high-quality public housing and a full supply of housing subsidy vouchers for all who qualify, not just the one in four eligible households who receive it now. 

A good detailed guide to the law’s changes is provided by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition here.

So, on behalf of our eviction court clients, a polite golf clap for the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. But we will save our cheers for when real reform, like the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act, becomes law.

In this episode, we examine a true silver bullet that can dramatically reduce poverty in the United States: pass a proposed law to update and improve our SSI program. 

We start out the episode with the story of Dorothy (not her real name), one of our many eviction court clients who is unable to work because of disability. Like 7.4 million Americans, Dorothy’s sole income is her SSI, Supplemental Security Income, check. But that check is only $994–less than the average rent, not to mention other expenses. This amount condemns millions of people to live in poverty and, like Dorothy and so many others, to experience eviction and homelessness. 

Our guest Stephen Nuñez, a researcher at the Roosevelt Institute, shows that we can do better. Stephen’s analysis of the SSI Restoration Act, introduced in Congress by Senator Elizabeth Warren and others, would boost the SSI monthly amount and dismantle nonsensical restrictions.

The bottom line: This legislation would do a LOT to help Dorothy and so many others: more deserving people would get SSI, and a lot less people on SSI would be in poverty.   

Here is some of the suggested reading mentioned in the episode:

• Estimating the Cost and Impacts of the SSI Restoration Act, by Stephen Nuñez, Jack Landry, https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/estimating-the-cost-and-impacts-of-the-ssi-restoration-act/ 
• SSI Restoration Act of 2026 Overview:, Justice in Aging, https://justiceinaging.org/the-supplemental-security-income-ssi-restoration-act/ 
• This One Neat Trick Can Reduce Homelessness https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/increase-ssi-reduce-homelessness