Democratic National Committee chairwoman and former co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign Debbie Wasserman Shultz, when asked by The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah if there was any merit to the accusation that the DNC was working to impede the Bernie Sanders campaign, replied, “As powerful as that makes me feel, I’m not doing a very good job of rigging the outcome or blocking anyone from being able to get their message out.”

She then explained her position required her to have “thick skin,” to deflect false accusations. “If I have to take a few punches in order for them to be able to make sure they get their message out, so be it.”

In this way, Wasserman Shultz deftly rearranged the cast of characters. All of a sudden, she was the one trying to “make sure” candidates could “get their message out” — not the liberals criticizing her for failing to do exactly that, liberals who in her view are the ones at fault (for throwing “punches,” false accusations, which somehow would silence candidate voices). Noah did not address this obvious evasion, nor the specific criticisms of Wasserman Shultz and the DNC.

The truth is that the DNC has, during Wasserman Shultz’s tenure, taken steps to make it harder for Bernie Sanders and other underdog Democratic candidates to get their messages out. And before her tenure, the DNC created a system that would indeed rig the outcome in favor of the politically well-connected and powerful.

While the DNC scheduling only six debates drew much criticism, it’s actually the same number they scheduled in 2004 and 2008. The difference in this election is a punishment was concocted to ensure the candidates couldn’t participate in unsanctioned debates, that is, debates not sponsored by the DNC. In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ended up having over two dozen total debates because they were allowed to meet in unsanctioned debates.

But Wasserman Shultz said in September 2015: “The candidates will be uninvited from subsequent debates if they accept an invitation to anything outside of the six sanctioned debates.” Her reasoning? “If you don’t have the national party put a reasonable number of debates on the schedule and insist that the number is adhered to, it starts to spiral out of control and the entire contest becomes built around the debate schedule.” She said too many debates would eat up candidates’ resources and time, forcing them off the campaign trail.

In other words, candidates for the Democratic nomination can’t be trusted to decide for themselves how to spend their time and resources — more nationally-televised debates, exposing the views of candidates to millions, is a strategy so silly, ineffective, and wasteful it must be closely curtailed.

Whether or not the DNC meant to aid Clinton with this decision (this writer suspects the former), it did precisely that. Any candidate with as high name recognition as Clinton would be aided by limiting the national exposure of little-known rivals like Bernie Sanders or Martin O’Malley. The Clinton campaign pushed for fewer than eight debates.

In 2008, the candidates at least had the freedom to join unsanctioned debates if they so chose; they were able to respond to Americans calling for more debates and media outlets offering to host them, without a DNC stamp of approval. By punishing candidates who step out of line (banning them from DNC debates), the DNC tightly controlled the candidates — when the candidates should be influenced by the people and address their wishes. The DNC made a strike against freedom and republican democracy, and gave Clinton an edge, all at once. Later, the DNC yielded to pressure for more debates.

Perhaps this was all completely innocent. But there was another issue.

To some, the consistency of the debates falling on nights with massive television audiences distracted by other programs seems too remarkable to be coincidence. In November, the Iowa debate happened to fall on a night the University of Iowa was playing Minnesota in the highly popular Floyd of Rosedale trophy game — analysts predicted this would tank Iowa viewership. A debate in December took place while NFL teams from two of the five largest media markets in the U.S. met for a playoff game; it also happened to be six days away from Christmas, when many Americans travel, and the opening weekend of a highly-anticipated Star Wars sequel. A debate in January fell on a three-day weekend and the night of another big NFL playoff game.

Later, as the campaigns negotiated a debate in New York, the Clinton campaign pushed for a debate on April 4, the night of an NCAA tournament game that featured Syracuse, a New York university. A Sanders spokesman called the suggestion “ludicrous.”

Again, whether or not this was intentional, the effect is the same. It protects the well-known front-runner at the expense of the underdog. Had the DNC and Clinton been interested in getting as wide an audience as possible, they would have gladly rescheduled the debates around popular sporting events and holidays. Also, weekdays are well-understood to get more viewers than weekends.

Further, Bernie Sanders supporters will not soon forget the DNC voter data breach just before the Iowa contest. The DNC voter database temporarily allowed Sanders’ national data director to look at Clinton’s voter data. The DNC quickly barred Sanders from his own voter data. The Sanders campaign fired the data director (who only viewed the information, doing nothing nefarious with it), but the DNC maintained the restriction, causing an uproar. Liberal website U.S. Uncut wrote:

The move was unprecedented as a punishment for any campaign. Even Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor, started a petition calling for Sanders’ file to be reinstated. David Axelrod, former adviser to President Obama, equated the DNC’s punishment to “putting the finger on the scale” for Clinton.

Massive pressure, including a federal lawsuit filed by Bernie Sanders himself against the DNC, forced Wasserman Shultz and her colleagues to back down and restore Sanders’ access.

Later, the Sanders campaign accused the Clinton campaign of using funds meant for the DNC.

[Update, 11/2/2017: According to Donna Brazile, who later replaced Wasserman Shultz, Clinton loaned a broke DNC millions in exchange for “control” over it almost a year before her nomination (the DNC is supposed to be neutral until after the nomination). According to Brazile, Clinton had control over DNC strategy, money, staff, communications, mailing, and so forth. This would have allowed Clinton to avoid donation limits to campaigns (instead fundraising through the party and then laundering it to her campaign, just as the Sanders campaign said) and influence the DNC’s work in each state in a way that favored her and hurt Sanders. Brazile is actually the one who leaked debate questions to Clinton during the campaign. 

The next day, NBC News published the agreement Brazile referred to, supporting her claim while adding some clarifications. “The arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates. Still, it clearly allowed the Clinton campaign to influence DNC decisions made during an active primary, even if intended for preparations later [for the general election].” During the primary season, the Clinton campaign appeared to have “oversight over how its money was spent” (“joint authority,” to quote the agreement), and the DNC agreed to find a communications director “acceptable to HFA [Hillary For America]” by September 2015, long before Clinton was nominated.]

And of course, the controversial superdelegates (or “unpledged delegates”) might still hand the nomination to Clinton against the will of the voters. Superdelegates (delegates from each state that do not have to vote for candidates according to state election results, but can vote as they wish) have never given a nomination to a candidate that did not also win the majority of everyday voters. However, it is still possible disaster is on the horizon. This is an undemocratic system that without question must be abolished. The very possibility of such an outcome, the very fact that Democratic voters must worry whether their voice — and their voice alone, not 712 current and former Democratic politicians — will select their nominee for president is an embarrassment. Not even the GOP has such a system!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz said of the superdelegates, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” This statement is brutally honest, considering both the history of superdelegates and the potential for Bernie Sanders, the voters, and democracy itself to be simply dismissed in the near future.

There are other issues to consider: Wasserman Shultz’s fundraising failures, her leaving a DNC finance chair caught illegally raising money for Clinton unpunished, the DNC offering office space to the Clinton campaign but not to her rivals’, Wasserman Shultz filling convention committees with Clinton supporters, so on. All these things have caused deep divisions in the Democratic Party. Nearly 75,000 people signed a petition demanding Wasserman Shultz resign, 207,000 signed a petition to demand the superdelegates follow state election results. Serious reforms are needed.

Intelligent people cannot deny tactics like these mock the notion of fairness and the ideals of democracy (the fact that Clinton herself is hopelessly corrupt only makes this situation darker). Rewarding those actions would, in the view of this writer, be a grave mistake. It would be a wonderful way of preserving the status quo, encouraging a corrupt DNC to continue on this path. If the people do not tighten the leash, there is no reason why DNC methods of manipulation could not grow more extreme later on.

Because, dear reader, while you may plan to vote for Hillary Clinton this year, there is nothing to say four, eight, twelve, or sixteen years from now there will not come along a “grassroots activist,” an underdog, that you prefer to the establishment candidate the superdelegate system, and other systems, are designed to protect.

When that happens, you will look back at 2016 and realize where you could have taken a stand against said systems, you worked to preserve them.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

When addressing the complex and controversial issue of abortion, there are three central questions to consider: Will criminalizing abortion put an end to abortions?, How immoral is abortion?, and Are there effective ways of reducing the number of abortions that don’t relate to criminalization?

Answering such questions through a serious study of history and sociological research is key, because only through those methods can abortion be made a thing of the past. Despite the fact some conservatives are deeply offended by pro-choice people, and slander them as “baby killers,” it is of great importance, to this liberal and I’m sure to many others, to reduce the number of abortions — to save infant lives.

The answer to the first question is without question no. The choice between abortions and no abortions, at least predicated on the law, is a false choice. After all, there was a time in the U.S. when abortion was illegal. Many conservatives wish to return to this era of righteousness, a time free of the holocaust of the unborn.

Unfortunately, abortions occurred throughout the country despite their illegality. In 1967, for example, it was estimated 829,000 illegal abortions took place. In the decade before Roe v. Wade, the U.S. saw as many as 1 million illegal abortions a year. Over 330,000 women were hospitalized annually due to the unsafe nature of “back-alley abortions” (Zinn, A People’s History of the United States). Thousands died, particularly before certain medical advancements.

As Rachel Gold writes,

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

The fact that modern medicine would mean fewer deaths if abortion was outlawed today does not necessarily justify its illegality, as abortions would still occur, some women would likely still be hospitalized and die, and State power over our personal decisions would still be increased, as discussed below. It may be tempting to think that sacrificing a few mothers a year would be worth it to save a far greater number of infants, but this may not be the reality — the holocaust of abortions would continue despite fewer maternal complications and deaths.

In Texas, which has slashed funds to abortion providers, ensuring that today fewer than 20 abortion clinics serve the entire state, women are buying a drug (misoprostol) smuggled in from Mexico to self-terminate their pregnancies, as documented in an important piece from The Atlantic. Dealers sell it illegally at flea markets in small Texas towns, and it is popular because it works. Misoprostol (combined with mifepristone) is prescribed by doctors for early pregnancy abortions. “In 2011, it accounted for 36 percent of all abortions before nine weeks of gestation” in the U.S.

The article also takes a look at the past conditions of women in Brazil who wanted an abortion but were barred due to the power of the conservative Catholic church over government policy: “They listened to old wives tails, ramming sharp objects into their uteruses and guzzling drug cocktails, and visiting clandestine, unsafe abortion clinics.” That is, until misoprostol came along; today half of Brazil’s 1 million annual abortions are due to the drug, which is sold on the black market, making drug dealers wild profits.

This is the story of many women in nations that restrict abortion rights. “More than 21 million women annually have unsafe abortions worldwide, which account for nearly 13 percent of all maternal deaths.”

This is not to say that some women won’t give birth because having an abortion is illegal. Criminalizing things, making things harder, can “work” to a degree, reducing abortions. But you have to think about the consequences of its failures, and weigh that in your moral calculus.

Pro-life individuals have very little to say in response to these facts. Take for example a Life News article entitled “Legalizing Abortion Did Not Stop Women From Dying in Abortions” (as if that somehow makes it acceptable to again criminalize it, which would increase maternal deaths). The author writes:

Pro-choice advocates would have you believe [the death toll from illegal abortions was] a monumental figure; some claim that prior to Roe, a whopping 17 percent of maternal deaths were related to unsafe abortions. Surely we would want to avoid this tragic loss of life, wouldn’t we? But those figures are inaccurate and misleading. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1972, the last year before Roe, 39 women died in illegal abortions.

That is literally the only attempt in the article to refute the historical information presented by pro-choice advocates. Simply call it wrong, then offer additional knowledge (39 deceased women) and pretend it somehow contradicts the fact thousands more died before those 39.

Not only will outlawing abortion not stop abortion, only endangering women, neither will it stop natural abortions. 70% of conceptions are lost prior to live birth, in a natural way. Most of the failures, which include both early failures to implant and later miscarriages, occur before a woman misses her period and even knows she is pregnant. Even after she is aware she is with child, she has a 10-20% chance of losing her pregnancy before week 20. True, this is not the same as the willful destruction of a fetus by conscious adults, nor is it meant to say nothing should be done to reduce the number of abortions, but it does provide perspective. Nature, evolution, and our imperfect reproductive systems are responsible (or is it God who is responsible?) for a holocaust far greater than our own.

How immoral is abortion? That is a far more complex question than it seems. You have to ask a lot of questions. Mull over various factors and wrestle with many of them; I certainly do. It’s not enough to say “It’s the same as if I murdered you right now.” Obviously, those are not identical things. They’re not literally the same. All ethics are situational. If a situation changes, even slightly, the ethics of an action may change too. A lie is unethical, unless a killer is asking where your family is hiding. Perhaps you think killing is wrong, unless it’s for your country or in self-defense. And so forth. Right and wrong are not black and white; they exist on a spectrum, where the same action can be less moral or more moral dependent upon the situation. Abortion, no matter where you fall on it, is an exceptionally unique issue with unique, complex moral questions.

For example, is it less immoral to commit abortion if the pregnancy was the product of rape? Is it right to force someone to give birth to a child that was forced upon her through sexual violence? Even many conservatives find it more morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy in this case. Likewise, what if giving birth puts the mother at serious risk of death (still an issue even in more advanced nations like ours)? Is it then less immoral to commit abortion than it might be otherwise? Shouldn’t the person who already exists have the preeminent right to life in that case? Personally, I think abortion is in fact less immoral in these contexts, among others. Should 11-year-olds be forced to give birth by the State?

If abortion is more morally acceptable in some circumstances, what about others? Is it more unethical to abort as time goes on and birth draws closer? Does age, developmental stage, matter at all in the moral equation? Many people think it does, and only consider abortion in the first or second trimester to be morally permissible. Fortunately for them, in 2014, “91.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions [7.2%] were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer [1.3%] were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation,” to quote the CDC. Personally, I tend to agree that it’s less ethical to commit abortion later on. Note that one can believe this while holding that all abortions, regardless of developmental stage, are either morally acceptable (somewhere on the right side of the spectrum) or morally unacceptable (somewhere on the wrong of the spectrum). I fall more in the latter category; I don’t view abortion as a moral thing to do, as it is taking a human life, and likely wouldn’t have one if men could give birth. But while I do not judge it to be as moral (or ethically neutral) as the Left often does, I do not believe it to be quite as immoral as the Right suggests — and ethics and law are at times divorced for good reason. There are various factors you have to take into account when 1) deciding if it should be criminalized and 2) deciding just how immoral it really is.

Regarding the first point, we’ve already seen how criminalization is ineffective. Terminating a pregnancy may be unethical, but surely the termination of a pregnancy with lower risk to a woman’s life and health is less unethical than the termination of a pregnancy with a higher risk to a woman’s life and health. Yes, I think it would be most ethical to give birth to the child. But that is simply not a choice I, you, or the government can make. It is the woman’s choice; it always has been and always will be, regardless of the law. That’s just the reality in which we live, so you have to go from that starting point. While it is compelling to argue that anything unethical must be made illegal, there are some unethical actions we do not outlaw (lying to hurt someone, cheating on a spouse, even suicide, and so on), for various reasons. Not all unethical things are or should be illegal; you have to weigh a lot of unique factors for each case, which may result in different conclusions. It isn’t necessarily hypocritical to believe an unethical act should be legal — you may feel that way about a host of issues (being rude is wrong, but should you be hauled off to prison?). Conversely, it’s sometimes said, “Well, if abortion should be legal because a ban doesn’t work, why not make murder legal? The ban on that doesn’t work either.” This is a good point, but again the situations aren’t precisely the same — there may be important reasons to keep abortion legal that don’t apply to making murder legal. If you’re a conservative who makes that point, consider that you already believe avoiding bans on war, firearms, torture, the death penalty, or other things that end up killing innocent people may not justify lifting a ban on murder. (See more here.)

As for the second point, while abortion in my view is immoral, I do not consider it as immoral as infanticide or the killing of an innocent person who’s been born. That’s not meant to celebrate abortion or advocate for having one! It’s simply to say that ethics are on a spectrum and not all scenarios sit on top of each other. A thought scenario that is sometimes raised has merit: if a fetus in a tube and a baby in a nursery were both about to die but you could only save one, which should you choose? Surely the moral choice would be to save the baby. Which would you choose? Letting a fetus in a tube die does not have the same moral weight as letting a baby die, in my view. Ethics are situational, so, likewise, abortion and murder (or infanticide) are not identical situations and do not carry the same moral weight. They each have unique moral questions and answers. Circling back to whether the age of the baby in the womb has any sway over the moral equation, the idea that infanticide is less moral than abortion fits with the idea that later abortions are less moral than earlier ones. You could even revise the thought experiment: if you had to choose between saving a fetus the size of a finger and a fetus at eight months, which would you choose? If you choose the latter, you’re accepting the idea that some innocent deaths are simply worse, simply less ethically tolerable, than others. And that others are more tolerable.

We’ve mostly covered this, but another moral decision to make: should the government force you to give birth against your will? For many conservatives, if the alternative is killing a baby in the womb then yes. Not exactly “small government” and keeping Big Brother out of our lives, but it’s understandable. The State outlaws theft, murder, rape, and so on, to curb or punish behavior. Liberals and conservatives tend to agree on these things. But personally, while I view abortion as wrong, I don’t believe giving the State the power to force women to give birth is desirable. It’s certainly not something I would wish upon myself. (And, again, it simply fails as a policy: women have dangerous black market abortions.) And to reject such a disturbing State compulsion, such tyranny, is to invite punishment! Some women who’ve illegally had abortions will be arrested and — what? How should we punish women who break the law and commit abortion? A fine and community service? Prison time? A life sentence? Execution?    

As for the final question posed in the beginning, we already know the most effective means of reducing abortions: preventing accidental pregnancies.

Research overwhelmingly shows safe-sex education prevents accidental pregnancies and abortions. Abstinence-only education simply does not work: students in such programs begin exploring their sexuality just as early (often earlier) and with as much enthusiasm as control groups. But, unsurprisingly, they are one-third less likely to use contraceptives. Thus, one recent study showed teens who received safe-sex education were 50% less likely to become pregnant than teens who received abstinence-only education.

Studies show sex education accomplishes what conservatives, and many liberals, most desire: a longer delay in becoming sexually active, fewer partners, less unprotected sex, lower pregnancy and STD rates, and fewer abortions. This is why those who hate abortion the most should also be the most vocal supporters of safe-sex education. To make abortion history, the Right must put aside its hysteria over sex and join the Left on this issue, broadening sex education in the home, at school, in healthcare clinics, etc.

Even while the U.S. has over 3 million unintended pregnancies a year (teen girls are double the rate of women, due to lack of sex education and access to contraception), the rate of abortions has declined dramatically since Roe v. Wade. Today it’s under 700,000 a year. Planned Parenthood, and groups like it, are central to this reduction effort, because they provide safe-sex information and contraceptives (in 2009, 35% of patient care at Planned Parenthood had to do with contraceptives; compare this to its abortion services: in 2011, only about one in every 10 clients received an abortion).

In 2009, the Guttmacher Institute estimated federal funds given to places like Planned Parenthood in 2006 prevented 1.9 million unintended pregnancies, thus preventing some 810,000 abortions. 2013 research told a similar story, 345,000 abortions prevented. Planned Parenthood estimates it helps prevent a half-million unintended pregnancies, and thus 216,000 abortions, a year. As a writer for the New Yorker said with a heavy dose of sarcasm:

If only we could find an organization that educates young girls, and boys, about the dangers of early and unwanted pregnancies; a group that distributes contraceptives but also stresses the fact that sexual abstinence is safe, free, and, when used continuously, always prevents pregnancies. That group could really lower the abortion and teen-age pregnancy rates in this country. Oh. Wait. We have that organization.

Yet because Planned Parenthood and other healthcare organizations also perform abortions, they are rightwing targets that must be protested, defunded, shut down, slandered with deceptively edited videos, or terrorized with violence like destruction of property and the murder of doctors.

Planned Parenthood receives $500 million a year from the Federal government, yet since it is illegal (due to conservative activism) to use those funds for abortions except in cases of rape or to protect the mother’s life, that money is used for other health care services, like STD testing, cancer screening, contraception, safe-sex education. Things that prevent the spread of diseases, death by cancer, and abortion itself.

Americans serious about ending abortions should be the most enthusiastic supporters of such groups, maybe even cutting a check themselves.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

When Bernie Sanders proposed using American tax wealth to cover all citizen medical and college tuition expenses, debates exploded over how much this would cost and how it could theoretically be paid for.      

Covering all state university tuition fees would cost the government an estimated $63 billion a year, which is actually far less than the State currently spends on Pell Grants, loans, and other financial assistance for higher education. Universal healthcare would cost $1-2 trillion a year, not too different from what the government currently spends ($1.3 trillion annually) to cover Medicare and Medicaid.

Sanders plans to enact a tax on Wall Street speculation, increase income taxes on the wealthy by 5-7%, on everyday citizens by 2%, increase capital gains, dividend, and estate taxes, and close tax loopholes for the wealthy (the wealthiest Americans are supposed to pay a tax rate of nearly 40%, but in reality some only pay 18%, sometimes 15%).

Sanders would also close corporate tax loopholes. Many large corporations don’t pay federal taxes.

Corporations employ armies of lobbyists to bribe politicians with campaign funds or promises of future executive positions to deregulate industries and place tax exemptions in the U.S. tax code, while armies of lawyers and accountants make sure companies are using the loopholes most effectively to whittle down their taxes (see Nader, The Seventeen Solutions for a detailed look at this topic).

This has been underway for decades, and now the largest companies pay no federal taxes — and sometimes even get tax refunds.

For instance, “From 2008 to 2010, GE made $7.72 billion in profit in the United States, paid no federal income tax, and got $4.73 billion back from the U.S. treasury” (Nader). In 2011, the nonprofit research group Citizens for Tax Justice released a report showing 30 major U.S. companies (like GE, Verizon, and Wells Fargo) paid no net federal income taxes from 2008 to 2010. 26 of them enjoyed negative tax rates. Instead of paying 35% of their income (that’s supposed to be the corporate rate), they got a refund. These companies alone left the government short $78 billion in revenue over the course of 3 years.

In 2014, 13 major Fortune 500 companies, including Time Warner, Ryder, Priceline, Prudential, Mattel, and CBS, paid $0 in federal taxes, instead receiving rebates. Two others, GE and JetBlue Airways, paid less than 1% in taxes. These companies made $23 billion in profits in 2014, but tax loopholes left these fortunes untouched.

In the second quarter of 2014, 20 large companies, such as GM, Merck, and News Corp., paid $0 in federal taxes or got a government check, despite all making huge profits. Merck’s income soared 52% during the quarter.  

Of 258 top U.S. companies, 18 paid no federal taxes from 2008-2015, with 100 companies enjoying at least one tax-free year. Averaged, the actual rate was closer to 21%, and the loopholes and subsidies amounted to over half a trillion dollars in lost revenue for the country. Amazon made nearly $6 billion in 2017 but paid no federal income taxes.

Amazon made nearly $6 billion in 2017 but paid no federal income taxes.

Over the years, corporate tax revenue has not kept up with economic output, a huge favor to wealthy corporate owners and their firms. According to the Tax Policy Center, 60 years ago, revenue from corporations was 5 to 6% of the GDP, but by 2010 it was a mere 1.3%. 

The tax burden rests heaviest on individuals. The Federal government collected $2.2 trillion in revenue in 2010. 82% came from individual income taxes and payroll taxes, while only 9% came from corporate taxes. In 2015, the government collected nearly $4 trillion in revenues and borrowed funds, taking $1.5 trillion in individual income taxes and $1 trillion from Social Security and Medicare taxes, but only $342 billion from corporate taxes.

(Naturally, the burden of taxes on wealthy individuals has also lightened. In the 2013 tax bracket, any income you made over $400,000 was taxed at 39.6%, down from 70% in the 1960s and 94% during World War II, averaging 81% from 1932-1980, according to Thomas Piketty in Capital. At least, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. In 2008, the IRS reported the 400 richest Americans only paid 18%. A third of these 400 paid less than 15%, the same rate as someone making $36,000 a year. At the same time tax rates fell, the richest 1% saw its share of the national income double since 1979; the share of the richest 0.1% almost tripled.)

The government hands out $1.3 trillion a year in tax breaks and subsidies, the majority of which benefit the top 20% of Americans and their businesses. $250 billion a year goes to the richest 1%. The Socialist Appeal reports, “It has been estimated that between subsidies, corporate tax underpayments and deductions, offshore tax havens, and various corporate tax loopholes, the wealthiest Americans avoid as much as $3 trillion in taxes every year. This is 3 times the U.S. annual budget deficit.” Oxfam found in April 2016 that the top 50 U.S. companies alone had $1.4 trillion hidden in tax havens.

Clearly, while free college tuition and healthcare are expensive endeavors, the possibility of cracking down on tax dodgers, rewriting tax laws to benefit ordinary working people instead of corporations, and ending the corporate welfare comprised of subsidies, deductions, and refunds, very much exists.

Doing so would go a long way toward funding programs that serve human needs.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.