Every presidential election, politicians tell us that this election is the most consequential ever. It is fair to be a bit cynical of this trope but it is an understandable and even noble exaggeration; elections matter and if hyping up an election as the most important ever increases political engagement, then God bless. However, this

This presidential election season has had one happy byproduct: extensive public discussion of the extent to which wealthy Americans avoid paying taxes. Obviously, the revelation that Donald Trump himself has likely avoided paying income taxes entirely since booking a nearly $1 billion capital loss in 1995 is the clearest example. But there’s also Hillary Clinton’s

Earlier this month, The New York Times revealed a $916 million loss on Donald Trump’s 1995 tax return. Expert analysis and common sense suggest that Trump used this loss to offset most, if not all, of his federal tax liability for the next 15 years as well as the preceding three, as the Internal Revenue

Our generation has the most to lose or gain in this election. In a political climate marked by hyperbolic and hateful rhetoric from politicians, in which immigrants, women, and people of color have been consistently degraded and threatened, we know that it matters more than ever who writes the rules. But this election has focused

We believe our generation has the most to lose or gain in this election. That’s why we came together to build the Next Generation Blueprint for 2016. Crowdsourced from more than 1,000 people in our network from 160+ cities, colleges, and universities, the Blueprint makes a bold claim: It matters who rewrites the rules, not just

This past Sunday marked the second of three presidential debates. So far, discussions of race in these debates (and in our broader electoral discourse) seems exclusively focused on the inherent criminality of communities of color, despite efforts from young people of color in social justice movements to shift the conversation. Black folks are only discussed

Over the course of the long presidential primary and the general election, there have been remarkably few debate questions regarding issues that disproportionately impact women and families. Yet women are a critical voting bloc: The single women’s vote helped usher Obama into his second term, and women are, after all, half the population. Not to

Secretary Clinton made a bold statement in her speech in Toledo, Ohio this week: “It’s time to rewrite the rules and make this economy fair for everyone.” Here at Roosevelt, we couldn’t agree more. But what exactly does she mean? And how do both presidential candidates measure up to our vision to rewrite the rules

At the beginning of this election season, the Roosevelt Institute challenged all candidates to rewrite the rules of the economy to promote growth and shared prosperity. Now it’s time to see where they stand. Today we are releasing a new candidate comparison based on the Rewriting the Rules agenda.  With the release of Rewriting the Rules and our

Although presidential debates do play an informative role, they are presented and consumed primarily as entertainment, and Monday’s debate was no different. Unfortunately, that means the candidates touched only lightly, or not at all, on topics of great importance. Exhibit A: The Federal Reserve. Full disclosure: I’m an economic policy nerd who supports the Fed’s