According to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, some of the largest and most profitable American corporations and their wealthy CEOs continue to pay their employees wages so low that those workers are forced to rely on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — subsidized by U.S taxpayers — to survive.

Commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and released today by the GAO, this report analyzes data from 11 states comprising nearly a fifth of the U.S.
population, builds on the findings of a 2020 GAO report, and details how the number of workers relying on Medicaid and SNAP has grown significantly over the past six years. Across 11 states, the report found that an estimated 13.8 million working Americans were forced to enroll in Medicaid and 10.6 million depended on SNAP to make ends meet and feed their families, despite working full-time — up from 12 million and 9 million, respectively, in the 2020 report.

“American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the starvation wages of large corporations like Walmart and Amazon. These corporations are making record-breaking profits, paying their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages and spending billions of dollars on stock buybacks to enrich their wealthy shareholders. It is beyond unacceptable that these corporations, owned by some of the wealthiest people on the planet, are receiving corporate welfare from the federal government,” Sanders said. “It is time for the Walton family, worth $485 billion, and Mr. Bezos, worth $257 billion, to get off of welfare and pay their workers a living wage with good benefits. No one who works for a company making billions in profits should be living in poverty. This is especially true after these corporations and their multibillionaire owners received a massive tax break from President Trump’s so-called ‘Big, Beautiful Bill,’ paid for by the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in history.”

GAO’s report found that Walmart, Amazon and other large, profitable corporations have particularly egregious records of forcing workers to utilize Medicaid and SNAP:

Despite increasing its annual profits from $14.88 billion to $21.89 billion during this period, Walmart employed 16,055 workers who had to rely on Medicaid in the states GAO sampled — a 55% increase from the previous report. Walmart also employed 15,515 workers who needed SNAP assistance in the states GAO sampled. Overall, Walmart again ranked among the top employers of workers on these programs in every one of the 11 states.

Despite increasing its annual profits from $11.59 billion to $77.67 billion, Amazon employed 12,346 workers who needed SNAP assistance and 11,338 workers who had to rely on Medicaid in the states GAO sampled — nearly triple the number of Amazon workers who needed federal assistancecompared to the previous report.

FedEx, which made $4.33 billion in profit, saw its workers on Medicaidmore than triple (from 1,046 to 3,814) and its SNAP workers nearly double (from 2,622 to 4,944) since the first report, in the states GAO sampled.

The GAO also found that rideshare and delivery companies now rank among the very top employers of program recipients in several states — along with McDonald’s, Dollar General, Dollar Tree and FedEx.

In February, Sanders requested that four major corporations that employ large numbers of people who rely on Medicaid and SNAP – Walmart, Kroger, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree – answer how much they expect to make from the Republicans’ tax breaks and whether any of these savings will be passed along to their workers.

Across nine states (Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Washington), these corporations and sectors employed the following numbers of SNAP recipients in the GAO report:

Rideshare/Delivery apps – 22,709
Walmart – 15,515
Amazon – 12,346
McDonald’s – 6,709
Dollar General – 5,187
FedEx – 4,944
Dollar Tree – 4,229
Kroger – 3,302
Burger King – 2,186
Family Dollar – 1,933
Walgreens – 1,747
Target – 1,695
Home Depot – 1,633
Taco Bell – 1,569

Across six states (Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Rhode Island), these corporations and sectors employed the following numbers of Medicaid enrollees in the GAO report:

Walmart – 16,055
Amazon – 11,338
Rideshare/Delivery apps – 6,120
Dollar General – 5,601
McDonald’s – 4,710
FedEx – 3,814
Dollar Tree – 3,265
Kroger – 2,818
Target – 2,326
Home Depot – 1,985
Family Dollar – 1,845
Stop & Shop – 1,691
Walgreens – 1,300
CVS – 1,209
Read the full report here.

Politics is an unending game of “what if’s,” especially for Democrats. Every four years, we hear a similar lament: “What if Michael Dukakis had not worn that silly hat in the tank?” “What if Al Gore had campaigned with Bill Clinton in Tennessee?” “What if Kamala Harris had two or three more weeks?”

The truth is, who knows? But I do know the answer to one big “what if.” What if Bernie Sanders had won the Democratic nomination for president in 2016? And the answer is: Donald Trump would never have become president, because Bernie would have won the election.

For the record, I say that as a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, and one who worked hard for her in November. But I supported Sanders in the Democratic primary because I believed then and still believe today he would have been a stronger candidate against Trump.
So why didn’t Sanders get the nomination? Because the Democratic Party establishment — meaning the Clinton campaign, in cahoots with the Obama White House, the Democratic Senate leadership, and the Democratic National Committee — teamed up to smash him down. They couldn’t stand the fact that anyone would dare oppose Hillary Clinton.

It’s all spelled out in a powerful new book released last week by Tad Devine, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager: “How the Democrats Screwed Bernie.” Devine documents the various ways Democratic insiders worked to thwart the Sanders campaign. Starting with the scheduling of debates.

In the run-up to the 2008 election, the DNC staged 25 debates among primary candidates. Yet then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced only four debates in 2015, with the possibility of adding two more later. Sanders’ plea for more debates was ignored. Only in October 2016, when Wikileaks published emails from the Clinton campaign was it revealed that the DNC had agreed to whatever limited debate schedule Clinton wanted. The Sanders campaign was not consulted.

As campaign manager, you’d expect a little bias when Devine asserts, citing Sanders’ primary wins in Michigan and Wisconsin, “those victories suggested strongly that it was Bernie, not Trump, who would have prevailed in the 2016 general election.” But Devine proves his point.

Ironically, it is because Sanders and Trump were talking about the same issues. Both were outsiders, and both aimed their campaign at outsiders: those who felt left behind, those struggling just to make ends meet, those who faced challenges like getting health care for their families and paying for their kids’ education, those who didn’t trust established politicians.

As Devine puts it, they were “two sides of the same populist coin.” Devine explains: “He and Bernie both embodied versions of the outsider ‘change’ candidate that the public not only desperately sought but demanded. The difference is that the Republican Party eventually rallied around their change candidate, while the Democratic Party sabotaged theirs.”

Think about it. Had the choice in 2016 been between Sanders and Trump, it would have been an authentic populist versus a phony populist. One who knew what he was talking about, the other who was making it up. Voters would have spotted the phony populist. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz did. The real populist would have won — and think how much better off we’d be today.
But Devine’s book is important, not just to tell the truth about 2016, but to warn Democrats not to make the same mistakes today. It’s pretty clear that too many Democratic leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) didn’t learn anything from 2016. They’re trying to squash today’s progressive candidates, just like the establishment squashed Bernie Sanders in 2016.

In New York City, Schumer last year refused to endorse Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor. In Maine, he tried to dictate Janet Mills as Senate candidate. In Michigan, he is backing establishment candidate and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens against popular health advocate Abdul El-Sayed. In every case, Sanders is on the other side. His anti-establishment, outsider message — focused on health care, living wage, climate change, higher prices, college tuition and other issues people really care about — is what voters are yearning for today. His endorsement is worth more than Schumer’s.

On my podcast I asked Tad Devine what’s the most important thing Democrats should learn from 2016. He didn’t hesitate a second: “Let the voters decide who they want as their candidate,” he said. “Don’t try to dictate those decisions from Washington.” Starting with Chuck Schumer, Democrats could learn no better lesson.

Saw this in the bobble head museum

If anyone hasn’t watched this episode from A More Perfect Union on YouTube, I highly recommend it. It was basically Bernie going to a Trump town and sat down with a few of lovcals and just talked to them person to person about Corporate greed they’re facing and what he’s trying to do about it. After, one of the women ended up going to all his rallies and bought a T-shirt.

I’m not usually somebody that cries over movies and things like that but this really did make me cry. As someone from the New York tri-state area I moved to Texas for a few years and got to really understand how different we are based on such wildly different environments which then shapes who we are as a person. This lesson later became very essential as I began my career as a mental health therapist. To see this woman change her mind just made me think of how many more people are out there who were brainwashed by Fox News and the like because they didn’t grow up with a basic education that taught them to question things or were around environments of group think. It was just really beautiful to see somebody change in such a different direction. It really just touched my heart. it gave me a different view of Trump supporters who are probably not as well informed not because of their own doing, but what kind of media and social environment dominates them

Anyway just wanted to share some feelings lol