Next week's election is a pivotal one for Colorado, as voters will decide a pair of ballot questions that could secure the state's low-tax, small-government reputation—or shatter it.
Confusingly, there is a slim possibility that they decide to do both. More on that in a moment.
The two competing ballot measures could hardly be more different. The first, Proposition 136, would cap individual and corporate income taxes at 4.4 percent—the state's current flat rate.
The other, Amendment 87, would rewrite the state's constitution to allow for a progressive income tax. It would also set new rates, ranging from 7.4 percent on income over $500,000 to 8.4 percent on income over $1 million. And it would offer a modest tax cut to the lower end of the income spectrum: Individuals earning less than $100,000 would pay 4.2 percent, while those earning less than $25,000 would pay 3.7 percent.
Even with those offsets, Amendment 87 would be a massive tax increase. Both advocates and opponents agree that it would generate about $2–3 billion in additional annual revenue for the state government.
For now, the higher tax rates created by Amendment 87 would only apply to incomes over $500,000. Unsurprisingly, supporters of the measure are framing this as an opportunity to make the wealthy "pay their fair share."
There are two reasons why that argument is a bit deceiving.
As Jared Walczak, a senior fellow at the Tax Foundation, points out, "the new rates would be statutory, while the authorization for a graduated-rate tax would be enshrined in the constitution, permitting the legislature to adjust rates later." Lawmakers would not have to get permission from the voters to make those changes, so Coloradans would be trading away their flat income tax for a new model where income taxes could be hiked by the legislature at any time.
Second, the new rates are not indexed to inflation. As a result, "a household making $450,000 a year in today's dollars would be moved into a higher tax bracket within eight years if their earnings increased by 3% annually," reportsThe Colorado Sun, which crunched the numbers. Such "bracket creep" would also push more workers over the $100,000 threshold, nullifying the small tax cut for workers making less than that.
Politically, the progressive income tax proposal is dividing Democrats. The Colorado Democratic Party has endorsed Amendment 87 (along with many of its usual allies, like the AFL-CIO and the state's largest teachers union).
But Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has called the proposal "a huge blank check to politicians" that will "cripple our economy and reduce jobs."
In comments to a Denver TV station, Polis also highlighted how higher taxes in Colorado would make the state less competitive with its neighbors. "Utah has a very similar tax rate to what we have. If ours is double, we can't compete for businesses," Polis told Denver7. "It's game over. We will not be able to attract new employers to Colorado if the voters adopt this."
It's not just Utah. If the amendment passes, Colorado would have a significantly higher top income tax rate than any of its neighbors. (The current highest in that group is New Mexico, with its top rate of 5.9 percent.)
Under Colorado law, constitutional amendments typically need 55 percent approval to pass. However, Amendment 87 requires only a simple majority* because it technically repeals provisions in the constitution, rather than adding new ones. Similarly, Proposition 136—the one that would cap the income tax rate at 4.4 percent—requires just a simple majority.
It is possible, though unlikely, that both could pass. That would create a conflict, since the state's income tax can't be capped at 4.4 percent and also hiked to more than 7 percent on incomes over $500,000.
If that happens, the ballot question with the larger share of support would win, per state law. "In short, that means Amendment 87 would need to both win majority support from voters and surpass Proposition 136 in total votes to go into effect," explains the Denver Post, which has encouraged residents to vote against both ballot measures.
Accordingly, Proposition 136 must win majority support from the voters and surpass Amendment 87 (which needs 55 percent to pass, don't forget) to be implemented.
It is all a bit confusing, but the outcomes are worth watching. Colorado has long been a bit of an outlier among "blue" states for its relatively low taxes and booming population. It's now up to the voters to decide if that remains true.
*CORRECTION: This article incorrectly described how Amendment 87 could be passed into law.
The other Dan Sullivan in Alaska has drawn the most attention, but both parties are quietly trying to use little-known candidates in other battlegrounds to siphon votes, too.
Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher in Alaska, was recruited by Democratic operatives to join the race against Senator Dan S. Sullivan, a Republican, whose allies have been left worrying that voters will be confused.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Wednesday stressed that Republicans could hold on to their control of the House if there’s strong voter turnout on Election Day. NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich asked Scalise if he was preparing for a Democrat-led House that would look to investigate President Trump and his family or impeach Trump for…
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on Wednesday stressed that Republicans could hold on to their control of the House if there’s strong voter turnout on Election Day. NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich asked Scalise if he was preparing for a Democrat-led House that would look to investigate President Trump and his family or impeach Trump for…
When Abdul El-Sayed ran for governor of Michigan in 2018, progressive media hailed him as the next Barack Obama. El-Sayed did not appreciate the comparison. "I get compared to Obama because my name is funny, and I'm brown, and my politics are about inspiring us to believe in each other again," he toldVox at the time.
In El-Sayed's telling, Obama was a "fairly centrist, middle-of-the-road" Democrat. He did not intend that as a compliment. El-Sayed believed the administration's policies were not nearly progressive enough—indeed, he believed Obama had betrayed the agenda he ran on. The far-reaching financial, environmental, and labor regulations that Obama pushed through were not nearly enough for El-Sayed.
El-Sayed ultimately fell short in the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary. Eight years later, he's a much savvier political operative; now running for the U.S. Senate, he has welcomed Obama's support this time. Yet El-Sayed's commitment to a left-wing agenda has hardly diminished. If he defeats his opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers (R–Mich.), he will be one of the most far-left politicians to win a statewide election in recent memory—and in a purple-ish swing state that President Donald Trump won twice.
Like his friend and mentor Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), El-Sayed is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); unlike Sanders, El-Sayed maintains that he is a capitalist rather than a socialist. Yet his political project has much in common with the DSA, and he has given every indication that he will align himself with DSA-affiliated members of Congress—veterans such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and likely newcomers such as Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez, both of New York, who rode similar waves of populist resentment to victory over establishment Democrats.
El-Sayed's left-wing bona fides were evident during his debate with Rogers on October 8. The Democrat proposed giving the federal government vast new powers: up to 50 percent control over AI companies, a socialized health insurance program along the lines of Medicare for All, and price controls on the domestic oil industry. Asked what he would do to bring down the national debt and pay for all the new spending he wants, he had a simple, three-word answer: "Tax. Billionaire. Wealth."
El-Sayed's support for higher taxes exempts one important constituency: seniors. Like many Democrats—andRepublicans such as Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.)—El-Sayed wants to exempt retirees from property tax increases, a policy that critics have branded "total boomer luxury communism" because it forces younger, less wealthy Americans to shoulder ever more of the social burden. The new wave of leftist Democrats think that higher taxes on the 1 percent, combined with cuts to the military budget, would be sufficient to pay down the debt while vastly expanding the social safety net.
In fact, El-Sayed has proposed tying Pentagon spending to education, such that an increase in money for the military would necessitate more funding toward schools. Don't expect this to work the other way around: Under El-Sayed's plan, a decrease in Pentagon spending would not force the government to stop throwing so much money at failing schools.
Ann Arbor and Onward
El-Sayed was born on Halloween in 1984. He grew up in Bloomfield Hills, an affluent, predominantly white suburb north of Detroit. His parents divorced when he was young, and El-Sayed lived with his Egyptian father and white stepmother. In high school, he was captain of the football, wrestling, and lacrosse teams. He continued to play on a club lacrosse team at the University of Michigan, which he attended from 2003 to 2007. (We overlapped briefly, though I never met him: I attended Michigan from 2006 to 2010.)
That meant going to Ann Arbor, a progressive college town with a long history of radical activism. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the prototypical '60s New Left student activist group, was founded in Ann Arbor in 1960; its first president, Alan Haber, still lives there. The White Panther Party, a sort of hippie counterpart to the Black Panthers, was based in Ann Arbor for a while; in the 1970s, the socialist Human Rights Party won multiple seats on city council. Liberalism, as well as radicalism, has thrived in Ann Arbor: The same year the SDS was born, future President John F. Kennedy came to the town to propose the international volunteer organization that eventually emerged as the Peace Corps. In the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries, the student-run Michigan Daily naturally endorsed the inspirational liberal candidate, Obama, over the establishment favorite, Hillary Clinton.
Over the course of the next decade—as left-wing enthusiasm for the Obama project faded and was replaced by bitter disappointment—El-Sayed enrolled in Oxford University and then Columbia University, pursuing a career in public health. (He never completed a residency, which has led to some scrutiny, even from friendly media figures, regarding his decision to describe himself as a physician.) In 2015, the mayor of Detroit appointed him the city's executive health officer. He resigned that position in 2017 to run for governor. That pattern repeated itself a few years later: He was appointed health director of Wayne County, which includes Detroit, in 2022, and resigned in 2025 to run for Senate.
Unlike in 2018, El-Sayed's hard-left politics and contempt for the Democratic establishment were now well-calibrated to prevail in the primaries. He defeated a more moderate candidate, Rep. Haley Stevens (D–Mich.), in part due to her support for Israel—an issue that El-Sayed frequently discusses. The same phenomenon has played out all over the country, with establishment Democratic figures paying a huge price when perceived as indifferent to voter outrage over Israel.
What works in the Democratic primaries does not always do as well in the general election. But while El-Sayed's politics are well to the left of the state he seeks to represent, the president's unpopularity may be enough to push him over the finish line. El-Sayed is narrowly ahead of Rogers in the latest polling. The Republican has finally resorted to breaking with the president on key policy issues—he has said that he wishes to end some of Trump's tariffs, conceding that "Canada is not our enemy"—but it may be too little too late.
Moreover, El-Sayed's left-wing foreign policy positions, which are not necessarily antithetical to libertarian views, count for more in Michigan than in other places. The state has a significant Arab-American population that politicians have ignored at their peril. In 2024, dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden's failure to curtail Israel's war on Gaza prompted many Arabs in Michigan to cast ballots for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, or even Trump, over Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Republicans have sought to portray El-Sayed as insufficiently supportive of Israel, but that doesn't always play well in Michigan—particularly at a time when dissatisfaction with Trump's blunders in the Middle East is strong among Democrats, independents, and even many Republicans.
El-Sayed does have a possible Achilles heel on foreign policy: His association with the far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. To many outside observers, the candidate's courting of Piker reads as a huge unforced error. Not only did El-Sayed seek the approval of an internet personality best known for praising authoritarian governments and evincing sympathy for terrorist groups, but he brought Piker to Michigan, put him in front of a camera, and made him a de facto representative of the campaign. For everyone except the toxically online, Piker is a bizarre and marginal shock jock, a man who says things like "America deserved 9/11." Piker is what happens when you pay too much attention to podcasts. He is also a reminder that while the insurgent left often claims to speak for ordinary, blue-collar working people, its agenda tends to be most popular with the affluent and elite-educated. In El-Sayed's showdown with Stevens, polls had her up 22 points with noncollege voters and 46 points with black voters. (Stevens herself is white.)
Yet El-Sayed prevailed, and he dealt with the Piker issue by shunting him to the sidelines. When asked about Piker, El-Sayed dutifully recites that a Twitch streamer from California has nothing to do with a Senate race in Michigan. (The obvious retort is Well, you brought him here.) He has also adopted right-coded language to explain why he should not be held responsible for Piker's inflammatory comments, tellingPolitico that he was over "this whole gotcha game, platform policing, cancel culture."
The GOP, meanwhile, may have gone overboard in the other direction. Rogers, a traditional Republican more in the George W. Bush mold than the Trump mold, is not exactly a right-wing firebrand, yet he could not stop himself from suggesting that El-Sayed has some sort of connection to Islamic terrorists. Just as Democrats should genuinely worry that linking up with people like Piker will cost them Jewish votes, Republicans should think more about whether reflexively calling Muslims terrorists is a bad strategy to win in Michigan.
After all, the form of radicalism that El-Sayed typifies is not really Islamic. It's not even foreign. It's the radicalism of left-wing economics, of making the federal government larger and more robust. He wants to prohibit corporations from buying houses and to punish companies like Airbnb over "housing dislocation." He wants to raise the capital gains tax, the inheritance tax, and the top marginal tax rates. He wants to give the Federal Trade Commission expansive new powers. He thinks higher education should be free for everyone. If he makes it to the Senate, El-Sayed will be a reliable vote for the Sanders agenda, including moratoriums on new data center construction, a much stronger Environmental Protection Agency, and, of course, Medicare for All. Indeed, one of El-Sayed's most frequent criticisms of Obama over the years has been that the Affordable Care Act did not go nearly far enough, and that it may have even been counterproductive to the mission of building a socialist health system.
Obama appeared alongside El-Sayed in Detroit on October 24. The candidate was savvy enough not to bring up his thoughts about Obamacare.
This Week on Free Media
I explain why it would be wrong to nationalize Elon Musk's companies.
Worth Watching
I finally watched You Can See Everything, Nathan Fielder's quasi-documentary about Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. It was made with considerable technical skill, and there's plenty to like about it—but ultimately I landed in the same camp as Reason's Christian Britschgi. We will discuss the film on this week's episode of Freed Up; look for that later today on the Free Media YouTube page.
Democrats need to flip four Republican-held Senate seats to regain the majority, but some of their targets are in states President Trump won by double digits in 2024. Our election data reporter Evan Reynolds explains just how difficult that might be.
President Trump had lashed out at Mary Peltola after The New York Times reported that her campaign and national Democrats helped recruit spoiler candidates to the race. He offered no explanation of what crime may have been committed.
President Trump campaigned this month for Senator Dan S. Sullivan of Alaska, a Republican running for re-election this year against Mary Peltola, a Democrat and former congresswoman.
Keisha Lance Bottoms, in her bid for Georgia governor, has faced pointed criticism of her leadership in Atlanta and disappointment in her decision to leave after one term.
Operatives aligned with Mary Peltola, the Democratic nominee for Senate, spent months recruiting candidates to peel votes from Senator Dan Sullivan, the Republican.
A sample ballot showing candidates for next week’s U.S. Senate race in Alaska lists two Dan Sullivans (highlight added here to both), along with Mary Peltola, the Democrat, and a fourth candidate named Gerald Heikes.
The House looks pretty likely to go Democrat, but the Senate appears to be more in play. Basically, Democrats need to pick up four seats to get control of it; seven races are considered toss-ups by Cook Political Report as of right now, just a few days before Election Day, but Democrats have leads (within the margin of error) in all of them, despite heavy Republican spending in most.
"If Democrats win all seven races, along with the ones in which they are favored, they would secure their largest Senatemajority since the Obama administration," notesThe Washington Post. "If Republicans win all seven races, they would maintain their current 53-47 majority in the Senate, picking up a Democratic-held seat in Michigan to offset a loss in North Carolina."
The math is less daunting for Democrats than it was at the start of the cycle. They need three of the six Republican-held toss-ups to reach 51, assuming they also hold Michigan, the only Democratic seat on the list. Michigan looks like the GOP's best shot at going on offense, since Mike Rogers cleared the Republican field without a primary while Democrats slugged it out all through August.
Meanwhile, the rest of the map looks like a list of Republican problems rather than Democratic strengths; make of that what you will. Maine is the only Republican seat up this year in a state Trump lost in 2024; Ohio features Sherrod Brown, who lost his seat by just four points in 2024 while Trump carried the state by 11; and Alaska has Mary Peltola, who in 2022 became the first Democrat to represent the state in the House in half a century. Each of these races is close for its own reasons, but the reasons happen to cut one way this year.
Not included in the list of toss-ups—Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Iowa, Michigan, Texas, and Ohio—are Georgia, where Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff looks likely to win, and New Hampshire, an open seat that anyone could technically take but that looks likely to go Democrat. Toss-up is merely a description of how close races look right now; earlier in the cycle, Georgia and New Hampshire were considered toss-ups, but Democrats are now favored to win. These things aren't static, of course, and different forecasters think about each race differently. Some of the toss-up races are primarily due to one party—frequently Republicans—running really terrible candidates (such as Ken Paxton in Texas, whose prospects we discussed on this week's Reason Roundtable). Other races have their own specific quirks, like in Kansas, where a Democratic Methodist pastor who is broadly liked (with no voting record to ding) is running against a Republican incumbent, who is facing headwinds related to high diesel prices that have raised the cost of running farm equipment and shipping goods, along with beef import tariffs that have pissed off farmers.
It's always possible pollsters are wrong. But most pollsters surveyed by The New York Times—including Nate Silver and Patrick Ruffini, both former guests on my show, Just Asking Questions—seem to believe Democrats will win both the House and Senate.
Scenes from New York: "After a woman said she was raped at knife point in Central Park over the weekend, the police said on Monday that they had stepped up patrols of the park as they searched for an assailant," reportsThe New York Times. "The 39-year-old woman told the police that she was jogging on the east side of the park near East 66th Street shortly before 8:30 p.m. on Saturday when a man dressed in black approached her brandishing a knife. He dragged her into a wooded area, raped her and ran off, the police said." This is the latest in a string of crimes in the area, including the murder of a 63-year-old homeless woman who slept in the park, and a 32-year-old woman who was robbed while riding a bike.
QUICK HITS
"Flávio Bolsonaro fled Brazil for the US hours after losing the presidential election and being ordered to surrender his passports, Folha de S.Paulo reported citing allies of the conservative senator," reportsBloomberg.
"Fox News is suffering a catastrophic drop in viewership, which has plunged to historic lows just before the midterm elections, according to new data. Preliminary Nielsen ratings obtained by Status ahead of their official release show that the Trump-friendly juggernaut is on track to post its lowest-rated month in total day viewers since December 2023, averaging just 1.1 million total viewers throughout October 2026," reportsThe Daily Beast. "Among the key 25-54 demographic coveted by advertisers, the outlet is headed for its lowest-rated month in a quarter-century, averaging a paltry 98,000 viewers. The collapse represents a brutal 27 percent drop in total viewers and a 32 percent dive in the 25-54 demographic compared to last October."
Subprime mortgages for people with bad credit! How could this go wrong?
.@PhillyMayor Cherelle Parker tells @EmilyRPeck that the city hopes to launch its historic mortgage program "before the end of 2026."
"Imagine getting a mortgage, a 30-year commitment, with no PMI," Parker said, and accessible "with less-than-perfect credit." #AxiosLivepic.twitter.com/DDDYMWBMAL
In the country with arguably the most successful market economy on Earth, it's not unreasonable to ask for just one major political party to favor a system of relatively unfettered voluntary exchange. And yet, the midterm elections offer Americans a "choice" between a party openly embracing socialism by name, and one that increasingly embraces state-directed economic activity in the cause of nationalism. Not every candidate running as a Democrat or Republican is on board with their parties' statist transformations, and there are certainly other issues separating the two dominant political tribes. But if you want reliable advocacy of economic freedom, you won't find it in the two major parties.
Open Socialism vs. Nationalist Economic Control
The shift in the Democratic Party's policy preferences from a heavily regulated market economy to outright government control has been well-documented, but it's worth noting Eric Bradner August report at CNN about "a growing list of victories by democratic socialists who are a prominent part of the Democratic Party's left-wing insurgency."
Before his election as mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani called for "seizing the means of production," as has congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which backs many of the new breed of officeholders and candidates and organized their insurgency, boasts of its solidarity with the totalitarian regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. Just a year ago, it sent "a delegation of 40 DSA elected leaders and rank-and-file members" to Havana to learn "about the achievements and challenges of Cuban socialism."
At 65 percent support for socialism in Gallup polling, more Democrats favor a state-controlled economy than back capitalism (35 percent)—though the odd tie in favorability with free enterprise (also 65 percent, but declining) suggests the schools aren't doing a great job of explaining ideas.
Republicans nominally hold very different economic preferences, with only 14 percent favoring socialism, while 86 percent support free enterprise and 75 percent have positive views of capitalism. But when asked by CNBC's All-America Economic Survey whether government should have control of private businesses, "66% of Democrats found it not appropriate for the U.S. to take equity stakes in American companies, while only 34% of Republicans agreed."
That's likely because under the Republican Trump administration, the federal government has been grabbing a piece of the action from tech and resource firms—40 companies, at the current count—and party stalwarts are happy to go along so long as the S word isn't used to describe the arrangement. Instead, it's cloaked as top-down encouragement of domestic jobs and manufacturing.
Two Parties With a Similar Taste for Government Economic Intervention
"American political leaders on the left and right are rebelling against the market-first consensus that dominated Washington for four decades," concludedAxios's Courtenay Brown and Neil Irwin in July. "It's evident in everything from the Trump administration taking government stakes in dozens of private companies to socialist candidates winning Democratic primaries promising a more active government role in the economy."
A glimpse of a socialist future can be found not only in the rising tide of explicitly socialist Democrats, but in GOP heir apparent and Vice President J.D. Vance's repeated denunciation of free-market economic thinking and its emphasis on private choice.
"Do we serve pure, unfettered commercial freedom?" he asked in First Things in 2019. "Or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?"
In a June interview with The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles, Vance returned to the topic to criticize the market-oriented ideas of economist Milton Friedman and called for a state-directed and Christian-infused "American developmentalist" approach to escape what he called "a hyper globalized economy."
"The policies supported by both major political parties suggest a growing embrace of state ownership of the economy," warns economist Daniel J. Smith for the American Institute for Economic Research. "The range of policies widely accepted as legitimate options, referred to as the 'Overton Window,' has shifted toward greater government direction of the economy, with some conservative politicians and voters now treating partial state ownership as an acceptable function of government."
Smith pointed out that the economist F.A. Hayek had observed this phenomenon among authoritarians of the right and left in the 1930s. It was why he dedicated his book, The Road to Serfdom, "to the socialists of all parties."
Rejecting Free Markets Means Losing Liberty and Prosperity
Why this is important is illustrated by Smith's recent research into the correlation, or lack thereof, between socialism and political liberty: "The record, from 1789 forward, is not ambiguous. High degrees of political freedom and heavy state ownership of the economy have not been sustained together."
Smith's observation is supported by the prominent socialist writer Robert Heilbroner's admission in his 1986 book, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, that "political freedom in modern times…has only appeared in capitalist states." He added, "democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist."
Also important, as the Fraser Institute's recently published Economic Freedom of the World: 2026 report points out, "economic freedom tends to be associated with better outcomes." Specifically, the report indicates strong correlations between free-market economies and higher GDP per capita, higher level of income for the bottom 10 percent of earners, lower poverty, higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality. As with the sources cited above, the report found that "personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, and religion are highly correlated with economic freedoms."
So, the benefits of having a major political party that believes in and supports free markets with minimal government intrusion are found not just in expanded political choice, but also in policies that promote freedom, prosperity, and human well-being. Unfortunately, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are retreating from economic liberty and embracing state control over how we produce, work, own, buy, and sell. Democrats' explicit embrace of socialism, and Republicans' dismissal of free markets in favor of state management and ownership, promise a future of less freedom and reduced wealth.
Maybe Americans would vote against socialism—both the open kind and the implicit nationalist variety—if given the choice. But it's increasingly difficult to find a free-market option on the ballot.
Senator Darline Graham, the South Carolina Republican, is struggling to replicate her late brother’s success. Republicans lead in the Florida Senate race and Democrats are up in Minnesota.
It was a showdown of sorts in western Texas as James Talarico and Ken Paxton appeared at dueling rallies on either side of a prairie-dog-filled city park.
On Tuesday’s broadcast of “CNN News Central,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) stated that “a lot of times, the Democratic Party, it goes too far left” and “once we win the majority, we need to go back there, and we need
Police officers were called to a youth soccer game in Florida, not because one of the players was too good, but because of his parents' alleged disruptive behavior on Saturday.
Elon Musk is under attack! Countless Democrats are admitting they plan to investigate or even jail him if they take back power on Congress in the midterms. They can't tell you what he specifically did wrong, but they'll come up with something.
Just as bad, or even worse, however, is that some of his critics want to nationalize his companies, including Starlink, which provides crucial infrastructure to Ukraine. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, a far-left populist Democrat, thinks Starlink is too important to be left under Musk's control, and that the federal government would do a better job administering it. I doubt that, but let's hear what he had to say:
NEW: Robert Reich calls for the "defunding" of Elon Musk, calls for Democrats to go after Musk's companies.
"Democrats ought to [start] laying the groundwork for nationalizing Starlink & SpaceX… It should be a public corporation."
From the horse's mouth: Reich thinks Democrats should be laying the groundwork to nationalize Starlink and SpaceX. This idea is crazy and reckless—and even dangerous. Here's why.
Now it's important to go over some of the background here. Starlink is a product that Ukraine uses to provide internet to its people, but only for civilian uses. Musk has maintained that while he is very happy to provide internet to Ukraine in the face of unrelenting invasion, Starlink cannot be used for offensive military purposes, because this would make his satellites a legitimate target of Russia in terms of their war effort. We want to avoid that. Separately, Starshield, a different system, is administered by the Pentagon, and Musk claims he has no control over it.
What happened last week is that a slowdown of the Starshield system resulted in reduced effectiveness of Ukraine's counterstrikes against Russia. And look, that was a problem. I traveled to Ukraine earlier this summer as part of a delegation arranged by a pro-Ukrainian nonprofit. I saw up close how important Starshield is to the defense of a free Ukraine. Moreover, there's entirely too much griping about Ukraine coming from some corners of right-wing media. Some people often seem to forget that Russia is invading Ukraine, not the other way around. It's Russia that won't accept a peace deal. When President Donald Trump called for an immediate ceasefire, Ukraine stopped hitting energy infrastructure in Russia—but Russia kept attacking anyway. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has agreed to immediately stop fighting and freeze the conflict along the current lines, just like Trump wants. It's Russian President Vladimir Putin who won't negotiate.
We don't know for sure who ordered the Starshield slowdown. The U.S. government has denied doing so. Musk has, however, claimed Ukraine violated the terms of service of Starlink, using it for offensive military purposes, and thus that system was slowed down. I understand why that might be frustrating for the Ukrainians, but the fact is that it's Musk's company, so he makes the rules. It belongs to him.
And importantly, it has to stay that way. Nationalizing the company would be an insane step to take in response to a tech owner having a say in how his product is used. Do we really trust the government to operate these companies as efficiently as their founders? Of course not. Moreover, in this specific case, it might bring us closer to a direct confrontation with Russia—and as much as it's a good thing to undermine the Russian conquest of Ukraine, we do not want to start World War III.
And there are the broader philosophical harms. We are experiencing an unprecedented flourishing in the tech space, with AI, driverless cars, robotics, and such. When the government nationalizes a successful tech company, it sends a warning to all the others: If you're too good at what you do, we might take you over. We might punish you. This disincentivizes investment and innovation at a time when they're desperately needed.
Nationalizing Musk's companies is doing Ukraine no favors. But it will hurt America's interests too. We want to encourage Musk, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, Mark Zuckerberg, and all the rest to compete with one another to design products that make life better, earning them profits along the way. It doesn't work if the government butts in. Unfortunately, far-left thinkers like Reich, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), and many of the people who are about to be elected to Congress for the first time actually want to slow down the pace of tech. That's how much they hate Musk.
A Cheesecake Factory jab from former President Obama quickly spiraled into a midterm spat between the GOP and Democrats as the competitive election cycle nears its end. Obama quipped during a recent campaign stop in Cleveland that President Trump has the White House “looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory, it’s just gold everywhere.”…
Retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) says that President Trump is “laying the groundwork” for MAGA allies to “steal” the Senate election after Trump said the federal government would be keeping an eye on the state. “He’s blatantly laying the groundwork to steal an election if his chosen candidate doesn’t win… Minnesota will not take kindly…
Login
