EQUITABLE TAX SYSTEM

Why America Must Restore a Truly Progressive Tax System

The American tax system has become a national disgrace—an albatross around the necks of working- and middle-class citizens while the ultra-wealthy accumulate obscene levels of wealth, paying a fraction of their fair share. We once had a progressive tax system to ensure that those who benefit the most from society’s resources contribute proportionately. That system has been gutted, perverted, and ultimately reversed into a de facto regressive system, where the poor and middle class pay the lion’s share while billionaires escape virtually unscathed.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, European nations have demonstrated how progressive taxation fuels a thriving, equitable society. It’s time the United States stopped acting like a third-world oligarchy and started taking lessons from the rest of the developed world.

The Roots of Progressive Taxation and Its Betrayal

The United States didn’t always have an income tax, let alone a progressive one. In its early days, revenue was generated through tariffs and excise taxes, highly regressive mechanisms that disproportionately burdened those with lower incomes. That changed with the Civil War-era Revenue Act of 1862, which introduced a modestly progressive income tax to finance the war effort. Later, the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 solidified the federal government’s ability to levy income taxes, paving the way for a truly progressive system.

At its peak, during the mid-20th century, the U.S. had a tax system that ensured the wealthy paid their fair share. In the 1950s, under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was a staggering 91%—and guess what? The economy thrived. The United States built the interstate highway system, expanded access to education, and lifted millions into the middle class. This was not a period of economic decline but a golden era of prosperity.

Then came the betrayal. Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s marked the beginning of the end for severe progressive taxation. The top tax rate plummeted from 70% to 28%, shifting the burden downward. The neoliberal gospel of “trickle-down economics” was sold to the American people like snake oil, promising that tax cuts for the rich would magically benefit everyone. Instead, wages stagnated, wealth inequality skyrocketed, and the American dream began its slow death spiral.

The American System Is Now Regressive—By Design

Today, America’s tax system is regressive in all but name. While the federal income tax remains mildly progressive, it is riddled with loopholes, deductions, and credits that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. However, the real injustice happens at the state and local levels, where reliance on sales, property, and payroll taxes disproportionately hits lower-income earners.

Consider this: in states like Texas and Florida—both of which pride themselves on having no state income tax—the tax burden falls disproportionately on the poor and middle class. Why? These states rely heavily on sales and excise taxes, which take a much larger share of income from low earners than from the wealthy.

An Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) study found that the poorest 20% of households in the most regressive states pay tax rates up to seven times higher than the richest 1%. The billionaire class, meanwhile, pays next to nothing, thanks to tax shelters, capital gains loopholes, and offshore accounts.

Europe’s Tax Model: A Blueprint for Fairness

Across Europe, many nations have refused to buy into the American-style neoliberal tax scam. Instead, they maintain strong progressive tax systems that fund universal healthcare, tuition-free education, robust infrastructure, and generous social programs while maintaining economic growth and innovation.

Take Denmark, where the top income tax rate is around 55%—and yet Denmark consistently ranks among the happiest nations in the world. Why? Because tax revenue is invested back into society, ensuring free healthcare, paid parental leave, and world-class public transportation.

Look at Germany, where corporate tax rates are higher than in the U.S., yet German businesses remain globally competitive. Unlike in America, where large corporations pay little to nothing in taxes while receiving massive subsidies, German corporations contribute to the well-being of the nation as a whole.

Even France, often derided by American conservatives, has a tax system that ensures the wealthiest contribute fairly. A wealth tax on high-net-worth individuals complements their progressive tax brackets, something the U.S. refuses even to consider.

The Path Forward: A Tax System That Works for the People

It’s time to reject the propaganda of the billionaire class and demand a tax system that works for the majority of Americans. Here’s what needs to happen:

1. Restore Higher Marginal Tax Rates – The ultra-rich must pay their fair share again. A top rate of at least 70% on incomes over $10 million is not extreme; it’s what worked before, and it can work again.
2. Close Loopholes and Tax Wealth – The real money isn’t in income taxes; it’s in wealth. We need a wealth tax on billionaires and higher capital gains taxes to ensure that investment income is taxed at least as much as wages.
3. Federalize and Equalize State Taxation – States that rely on sales and excise taxes must be reined in. The federal government should incentivize progressive state tax structures, ensuring fairness across all states.
4. Crack Down on Corporate Tax Evasion—There should be no more offshore loopholes or subsidies for billion-dollar companies. A minimum corporate tax rate of 25% should be enforced.

America Must Choose: Progress or Oligarchy

A progressive tax system is not just about fairness but survival. If we continue down this path of regressive taxation, where the rich get richer while the working class struggles to afford basic necessities, we are setting the stage for a social and economic collapse.

We can either restore a tax system that prioritizes the well-being of all Americans, or we can continue subsidizing billionaires and corporate greed while the nation crumbles. The choice is ours.

William James Spriggs

THE OPPOSITION LEADER

The Opposition Needs a Leader: Why Mike Pence is the Only Real Choice

The United States is in the midst of a political crisis, and with the threat of authoritarianism looming, the question must be asked. Who will lead the opposition? The Democratic Party, despite its best intentions, has failed to present a credible counterforce to the radicalized Republican Party that now bears little resemblance to the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, or even Reagan. The opposition needs a leader who can reach beyond the usual partisan lines and appeal to the real Republican Party, the one that once valued constitutional principles over blind loyalty to a single man. That leader, unlikely as it may seem, could be Mike Pence.

A Bridge to the Old Republican Party

For all his faults, Mike Pence carries something that no Democrat or progressive leader can, a deep-rooted credibility within the conservative movement. He was once a favorite among traditional Republicans, a steady hand who could quote Ronald Reagan and talk about fiscal responsibility without being laughed out of the room. The Republican Party, before Trump and his sycophants hijacked it, prided itself on law, order, and reverence for the Constitution. If there is to be a movement to reclaim the party and return it to its foundational values, it must be led by someone with credibility among conservatives.

Pence demonstrated his allegiance to the Constitution over personal loyalty in his most defining moment. On January 6, 2021, he refused to bend to the mob and reject the electoral votes, an act that could have plunged the country into a constitutional crisis. He upheld the rule of law when it mattered most. That moment alone gives him the moral authority to challenge the rising tide of authoritarianism within his own party.

An Evangelical Who Can Speak to Evangelicals

One of the most critical barriers to forming an effective opposition to Trumpism is the unwavering loyalty of evangelical Christians to the MAGA movement. Trump has courted the religious right with empty promises, appointing conservative justices and championing their causes despite his own blatant moral failures. The only figure who could credibly challenge Trump’s grip on evangelical voters is someone who speaks their language, and that person is Mike Pence.

Pence has built his entire political career on his faith. Unlike Trump, who cynically wields religion for political gain, Pence genuinely believes in the principles he preaches. If he were to step forward as the leader of the opposition, he could make the case that the evangelical movement must return to moral leadership, not blind allegiance to a man who represents the antithesis of their faith.

The Truman Comparison: A Reluctant Leader Who Rose to the Moment

Mike Pence may not seem the natural choice to lead a political resistance, but history has shown that the most effective leaders often emerge from unexpected places. Harry Truman was once dismissed as an unremarkable politician, a placeholder vice president who suddenly led the nation at one of its most crucial moments. He was underestimated, yet he rose to the occasion and became one of the most consequential presidents in American history.

Like Truman, Pence may not exude the charisma or boldness of a traditional opposition leader. But he has a foundation of credibility, experience, and a deep understanding of the constituencies that must be won over to defeat Trumpism. If he wishes, he could define himself as a continuation of the role he once played, to protect and defend the Constitution, not as Trump’s vice president but as the leader of a principled opposition.

The Question of Willingness

The real question is whether Mike Pence wants to assume this role. So far, he has largely faded into the background, unwilling to fully challenge the forces that now control his party. However, he must step forward if he recognizes the danger of a second Trump presidency and truly believes in the values he has long claimed to uphold.

The opposition needs a leader, and Mike Pence is the only one who can credibly reclaim the soul of the Republican Party and counter the dangerous rise of authoritarianism. The time for hesitation is over. He must lead if he is serious about his oath to the Constitution.

William James Spriggs

DRAFT SUIT AGAINST ELON MUSK

The suit against Musk would argue that his direct influence over governmental policies, tax structures, and regulatory decisions has led to tangible harm by reducing essential services.

Potential legal theories:

1. Public Nuisance – Musk’s advocacy and financial backing of defunding efforts have created unsafe conditions for the public.
2. Negligence/Reckless Endangerment—Musk has knowingly increased public risk by pushing for regulatory rollbacks and defunding.
3. Tortious Interference with Government Functions – Musk’s influence has obstructed essential government services, leading to direct harm.
4. Wrongful Death/Personal Injury – If deaths or injuries can be linked to his policies, those affected could sue under wrongful death laws.

Potential Plaintiffs:

• Families of individuals who died due to emergency response delays.
• People harmed by increased crime due to police layoffs.
• Fire victims whose homes were lost due to reduced fire services.
• Patients harmed by overwhelmed or underfunded healthcare systems.

Pro Forma Complaint Against Elon Musk

COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[Jurisdiction TBD: Federal or State Court]

Plaintiffs:
[List of affected individuals, estates, or organizations]

Defendant:
Elon Musk, individually and as CEO of various enterprises

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE, NEGLIGENCE, AND WRONGFUL DEATH/PERSONAL INJURY

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief against Elon Musk for his reckless and intentional actions that have resulted in substantial harm to public safety.
2. Through his direct influence over government policies, corporate lobbying efforts, and public statements, Musk has advocated for and actively contributed to the weakening of federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other essential federal agencies responsible for public safety, national security, and cybersecurity.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction under [appropriate statutes, e.g., diversity jurisdiction if multiple states involved].
4. Venue is proper in [location where harm occurred or where Musk has significant influence, e.g., California, Texas, or another affected state].

PARTIES

5. Plaintiffs are individuals and families who have suffered physical, emotional, and financial harm due to the Defendant’s actions.
6. Defendant Elon Musk is a private citizen, billionaire, and CEO of multiple enterprises, including Tesla, SpaceX, and X (formerly Twitter), who has used his influence to advocate for the weakening of essential government agencies, thereby compromising public safety and national security.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

7. Defendant Musk has publicly criticized, undermined, and contributed to efforts aimed at dismantling federal law enforcement agencies, particularly the FBI.
8. Defendant has actively supported political initiatives and individuals who have worked to defund, discredit, and reduce the effectiveness of federal agencies responsible for investigating corporate fraud, cybercrime, and threats to national security.
9. As a result of Musk’s actions, the FBI, federal regulatory bodies, and key public safety agencies have suffered staff reductions, budget constraints, and decreased effectiveness, leaving the public vulnerable to crime, fraud, and national security threats.
10. Plaintiffs have suffered harm as a direct result of these actions, including (a) increased cyber threats due to weakened federal oversight, (b) loss of critical protections from financial and corporate fraud, (c) increased risk of domestic and foreign terrorism due to a weakened FBI, and (d) compromised national security due to the dismantling of regulatory agencies.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – PUBLIC NUISANCE

11. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
12. Defendant’s actions in advocating for the weakening of federal law enforcement and public safety agencies have created an ongoing public nuisance by increasing risks to public security, cybersecurity, and financial stability.
13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries including economic loss, emotional distress, and increased exposure to criminal activity.

Relief Sought:

• Declaratory judgment that Musk’s actions have contributed to public harm.
• Injunctive relief requiring Musk to cease funding anti-government initiatives that undermine federal law enforcement.

COUNT II – NEGLIGENCE & RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT

14. Defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in his influence over public policy and governmental functions that protect public safety.
15. Defendant breached that duty by knowingly advocating for policies that have made communities, national security, and the economy more vulnerable, resulting in foreseeable harm.
16. As a result of Defendant’s reckless actions, Plaintiffs have suffered economic loss, exposure to cybercrime, increased financial fraud risks, and threats to physical safety.

Relief Sought:

• Compensatory damages for economic harm and increased security risks.
• Punitive damages to deter Defendant from continued reckless behavior.

COUNT III – WRONGFUL DEATH (IF APPLICABLE)

17. Certain Plaintiffs bring this claim under wrongful death statutes as representatives of deceased individuals who lost their lives due to reduced federal law enforcement capabilities.
18. Defendant’s actions directly contributed to the conditions that caused the death of the decedents.

Relief Sought:

• Wrongful death compensation for families of deceased victims.
• Injunction to prevent further efforts to weaken federal law enforcement.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Award compensatory damages for economic loss, increased security risks, and personal harm.
B. Award punitive damages due to Defendant's actions' egregious and reckless nature.
C. Issue an injunction preventing Musk from funding anti-government initiatives that harm federal law enforcement and national security.
D. Award any other relief this Court deems just and equitable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: [Insert Date]
Respectfully submitted,
[Plaintiff’s Attorney Name]
[Law Firm Name]
[Contact Information]

William James Spriggs

 

SUE ELON MUSK

This article explores how we could sue Elon Musk for his tortious behavior.

1. What Torts Could Be Alleged?

• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): This would require proving Musk’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, intended to cause distress, and did cause severe emotional harm. Public statements, social media actions, and business decisions might be used, but courts often set a high bar for IIED.
• Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED): If Musk’s conduct can be shown as reckless or careless, and it foreseeably caused harm, there might be a claim. However, NIED often requires a physical impact or close proximity to a traumatic event.
• Tortious Interference with Business or Contract: If individuals or businesses lost contracts or suffered economic damage due to Musk’s deliberate actions (e.g., his influence on Twitter policies harming employees, former staff, or advertisers), this might be a strong avenue.
• Defamation: If specific people or businesses were falsely harmed by Musk’s public statements (e.g., accusing someone of fraud, criminal activity, or incompetence), a defamation suit could have merit.
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Shareholder Lawsuits: If Tesla or SpaceX shareholders lost significant value due to Musk’s erratic behavior, they might have standing for derivative suits.
• Violation of SEC Rules & Stock Manipulation: Musk’s tweets and business statements have already drawn SEC scrutiny. A securities fraud case might be viable if investors lose money due to misleading or false statements.

2. Legal Hurdles

• First Amendment Defense: Musk’s public statements, especially on social media, may be shielded under free speech protections unless they involve defamation or direct incitement of harm.
• Causation Issues: Proving direct harm from Musk’s actions would require showing a clear link between his conduct and financial/emotional damage, which can be challenging.
• Class Action Certification: If pursuing a group lawsuit, plaintiffs need common harm and legal grounds. This might be difficult given the varied ways people are affected by Musk’s behavior.
• Jurisdiction & Venue: Where to file would be crucial, federal court versus state court, and whether the claims fall under contract law, tort law, or regulatory statutes.

3. Possible Paths Forward

• Securities & Shareholder Lawsuits: This has precedent. Musk has been sued for stock manipulation and misleading investors before.
• Employment & Contractual Claims: Laid-off workers, advertisers, and others impacted by his actions (e.g., X/Twitter firings, cancellations) might have viable claims.
• Strategic State-Based Claims: Some jurisdictions have stronger consumer protection or defamation laws that could be leveraged.

4. Would It Work?

• It could work, but it would require strategic plaintiff selection, clear-cut harm, and strong evidence tying Musk’s conduct directly to damages.
• If the goal is accountability rather than financial recovery, public lawsuits (even if unsuccessful) could pressure Musk and bring regulatory attention.

 Another argument would be that Musk’s actions have resulted in widespread harm by weakening essential public services, creating foreseeable risks to public safety, health, and welfare. This would be a novel approach in tort law, but it’s worth exploring. Here are some potential theories of liability and challenges:

1. Possible Legal Theories

A. Public Nuisance

• Claim: Musk’s actions (such as pushing for eliminating regulatory agencies, spreading misinformation, or defunding government functions) have caused substantial harm to the public.
• Example Precedents: Public nuisance cases have been used against opioid manufacturers (Purdue Pharma), polluters (Flint Water Crisis), and gun manufacturers. Could Musk be held responsible for similarly dismantling social safety nets?
• Challenges: Courts often require direct causation and reject nuisance claims against political or ideological advocacy.

B. Negligent or Reckless Endangerment

• Claim: Musk’s financial and political influence has made society more vulnerable to disaster by undercutting government services that protect public health and safety.
• Example: If Musk’s lobbying against government intervention directly reduced resources for pandemic response, disaster relief, or emergency services, one could argue reckless endangerment.
• Challenges: Courts generally do not hold individuals liable for systemic policy changes unless direct causation is clear.

C. Tortious Interference with Public Services

• Claim: By advocating against government regulations and funding, Musk has interfered with essential government functions that protect citizens.
• Example: If a municipality had to cut emergency services because of a Musk-driven initiative, and people were harmed as a result, this could form the basis of a lawsuit.
• Challenges: Government policy is usually seen as the responsibility of lawmakers, not private individuals.

D. Wrongful Death / Survival Actions

• Claim: If there is a direct connection between Musk’s influence (e.g., his misinformation about COVID, refusal to follow safety regulations or actions that weakened government response) and actual deaths, wrongful death claims might be possible.
• Example: If Tesla employees were forced to work in unsafe conditions due to Musk’s decisions and someone died as a result, that could form a case.
• Challenges: Proving direct causation is difficult in mass-scale harm cases.

E. Civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

• Claim: If Musk’s actions involved fraud, coercion, or manipulation for financial gain while dismantling government safeguards, it could be argued that he engaged in a pattern of unlawful conduct.
• Example: If Musk knowingly manipulated stock values or defrauded investors while promoting policies that harmed public safety, there could be an argument for RICO violations.
• Challenges: RICO cases require proving an ongoing criminal enterprise, which may be difficult in this context

2. Challenges

• First Amendment Protections: Musk’s speech, lobbying, and business decisions are primarily protected unless they involve direct fraud, defamation, or incitement to violence.
• Proving Causation: Courts would demand clear evidence that Musk’s actions directly caused harm rather than broader systemic issues.
• Sovereign Immunity of Government: If Musk’s influence led to lousy government decisions, courts might view the responsibility as belonging to policymakers, not him.

3. Potential Legal Strategy

• Focus on Specific Harms: Rather than suing over broad societal impact, plaintiffs would need clear cases (e.g., individuals who died due to lack of emergency services that Musk’s influence helped defund).
• Leverage Existing Lawsuits: Musk is already being sued for employment violations, securities fraud, and whistleblower retaliation; adding a public endangerment angle could be an extension.
• Class Action: A class action suit might be possible if a group of people can be identified as suffering due to Musk’s influence (e.g., emergency workers laid off due to budget cuts caused by Musk-backed policies).

Would It Work?

• It’s a long shot, but it’s not impossible.
• The most substantial claims might be public nuisance or wrongful death tied to specific incidents rather than broad social change.
• A successful lawsuit would likely need to use Musk’s own statements and actions to show he intentionally or recklessly endangered public welfare.

William James Spriggs

 

 

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

 

THE MILITARY OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION

Defending the Constitution Is a Lifelong Duty

To every member of the United States military, active duty, recently separated, retired, and veteran, I write to remind you of our solemn commitment when we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. This oath is not a temporary obligation. It does not expire upon separation from service. It is a lifetime commitment, a sacred duty that binds us to the very foundation of our nation.

When I was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1964, I swore the following oath:

"I, William J. Spriggs, having been appointed an officer in the Marine Corps of the United States, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

The Oath Has No Expiration Date

Every man and woman who has taken this oath, whether enlisted or commissioned, must recognize its weight. It is not tied to a contract, an enlistment period, or a duty station. It does not dissolve upon retirement. It is a lifelong duty to uphold and protect the Constitution, ensuring our democracy remains intact for future generations.

At this moment in our history, that duty calls upon us again. Today's threats to our Constitution are not coming from a foreign battlefield but from within. Those who seek to dismantle democratic institutions, undermine the rule of law, and erode the foundational principles of our Republic are the very "domestic enemies" our oath requires us to defend against.

The Military’s Role as the Guardian of the Constitution

To those currently serving in uniform: your duty is clear. You are not just soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardians, and Marines. You are the last line of defense for the Constitution of the United States. You are not beholden to any individual, political party, or movement. Your loyalty belongs to the Republic and the democratic system of government enshrined in our founding documents.

If anyone, whether a civilian leader, an elected official, or a military superior, commands you to act in a way that violates the Constitution, your duty is to refuse. History has shown us the consequences of blind obedience to unlawful orders. As military professionals, we swore to uphold a higher standard, obey lawful orders, and reject unconstitutional ones.

To Veterans: Our Fight Continues

Our duty has not ended for those of us no longer in uniform. While we may no longer serve officially, we remain bound to our oath. We must speak out, educate, and engage in the democratic process. We must ensure that those currently serving understand their role as guardians of the Constitution.

This is not a time for silence or complacency. Democracy is under attack. Efforts to undermine voting rights, delegitimize elections, and concentrate power into the hands of the few are threats that demand our attention and action. We must remember that our oath was not to a person; it was to an idea, to a set of principles that have guided our nation since its inception.

Honor the Oath

Once a Marine, always a Marine. Once a soldier, always a soldier. Once a defender of the Constitution, always a defender of the Constitution. In these days of national crisis, we must honor our oath in the truest sense, by fighting to preserve democracy.

Let history remember us for our uniform service and our unwavering commitment to the ideals that make America a nation worth defending.

Semper Fidelis,

William James Spriggs

Top of Form

 

Bottom of Form

 

SELLING AMERICA TO THE BILLIONAIRES

The Wrongheaded Push to Privatize Public Services: How Trump and Republicans Are Selling Out America

The push to privatize public services is one of the most disastrous trends in modern American governance. This country is moving in the wrong direction, dismantling public institutions and handing them over to private, for-profit interests. Donald Trump, following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and decades of Republican ideology, seeks to turn nearly every essential public service into a revenue stream for his billionaire allies. This is not just misguided, it is a direct assault on democracy and the American people.

Public services exist for the common good, not for private profit. They are meant to be controlled by the people, funded by tax dollars, and operated as not-for-profit institutions. The core of a functioning democracy is that its citizens have oversight and control over essential services through voting and public accountability. Once privatized, these services become beholden to investors, profit margins, and corporate greed rather than the population's well-being.

What Must Remain Public?

Every essential service that affects life, safety, and the functioning of society must remain in public hands, including:

• Police and Fire Departments – Public safety should never be a profit-driven enterprise. When law enforcement and emergency services are privatized, justice is sold to the highest bidder.
• Transportation – Public transportation, including air, rail, and ground transit, should serve all people, not just those who can afford high fares dictated by private corporations.
• Food and Water Safety – The privatization of food inspection, water management, and utilities threatens the health of every American. A profit-driven model incentivizes cutting corners, leading to dangerous lapses in safety.
• Healthcare – The idea that private insurance companies and hospitals should dictate who gets care and at what cost has resulted in skyrocketing prices, medical bankruptcies, and millions without access to necessary treatment. Like in other developed nations, publicly funded healthcare is the only ethical solution.
• Education – Schools should be learning centers, not profit-driven businesses. Charter schools, for-profit universities, and voucher programs are designed to siphon taxpayer money into private hands while leaving millions of children behind.
• Electricity and Power – Privatizing electricity, gas, and other utilities has led to skyrocketing costs and preventable disasters, such as power grid failures that have left millions in the dark.
• Roads and Infrastructure – Turning highways and bridges into private toll roads creates a system where only the wealthy can afford efficient transportation. Infrastructure should be built and maintained for the benefit of all.
• Postal Services – The U.S. Postal Service provides affordable, universal mail delivery. Privatizing it would mean higher costs and reduced service, particularly for rural communities.

The Real Agenda: Oligarchy in the Making

The goal of privatization isn’t efficiency; it’s power and control. When Trump and his allies push for privatizing government services, they are not looking to improve them. They want to create an oligarchy in which billionaires control society's essential functions.

Privatization does not lower costs or improve services. It eliminates public oversight, allows price gouging, and creates monopolies that benefit only a wealthy few. Other developed nations recognize the value of public services. European nations, Canada, and some developing countries ensure that healthcare, education, transportation, and utilities remain public goods. The United States, however, is moving in the opposite direction, auctioning off the public sector to private investors with little to no accountability.

We Must Reverse Course

If America continues down this road, we will become a nation where only the wealthy have access to safety, education, and healthcare. The dismantling of public services is a direct attack on democracy, replacing it with a corporate-controlled state that serves only the elite.

To stop this, Americans must demand the protection and expansion of public services. We must reject politicians who prioritize corporate profits over the well-being of the people. We must vote for leaders who understand that government exists to serve all, not just those who can pay the highest price.

The privatization agenda betrays the American people. It’s time to fight back before there’s nothing left to save.

William James Spriggs

DAMAGE CLAIMS FOR TRUMP'S ACTIONS

 The Sovereign Act Defense and Trump’s Contract Cancellations: Why It Will Fail

In government contract law, the government often asserts the sovereign act defense to shield itself from liability when it takes actions that impact contracts but are carried out in its sovereign capacity rather than its contractual role. This defense, however, has limits. Specifically, when the government acts self-serving, such as terminating contracts to save money or escape obligations, it cannot invoke the sovereign act defense.

Today, the Trump administration’s rampant cancellation of government contracts raises serious legal questions. These cancellations, many of which pertain to goods and services provided by contractors, appear not to be made in the broader interest of the public but rather as part of an agenda that benefits a select group of wealthy individuals. If contractors challenge these cancellations through claims under the changes clause, termination clause, or as outright breach claims, the administration is almost certain to assert the sovereign act defense. However, given the self-interested nature of these actions, this defense should not apply.

A key precedent in this area is the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996). In Winstar, the Court addressed government liability when it reneged on financial incentives promised to savings and loan institutions during a crisis. The government sought to use the sovereign act defense to avoid liability, arguing that its later regulatory changes were made in its sovereign capacity. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not escape liability when its actions directly undercut the terms of its agreements, effectively invalidating its contractual commitments.

The Winstar ruling is instructive in assessing the Trump administration’s mass contract cancellations. If these terminations primarily advance a political or economic agenda rather than fulfilling an essential sovereign duty, contractors have substantial grounds to argue that the cancellations constitute a breach of contract. The precedent established by Winstar suggests that when the government voluntarily enters into contracts and then changes course in a way that disadvantages contractors without a valid sovereign justification, it cannot rely on sovereign immunity to escape liability.

Importantly, contractors affected by these cancellations have strong affirmative claims under the terms of their contracts. Standard contract clauses, such as the Changes and Termination for Convenience clauses, provide contractors with direct avenues for asserting claims against the government. Furthermore, when the government cancels contracts in a manner that constitutes a breach, contractors have the right to pursue damages under breach of contract theories. The government’s sovereign act defense does not apply when its actions are self-serving and inconsistent with its contractual obligations.

The Trump administration’s approach to government contracts appears driven not by national interest but by an effort to reshape economic structures to favor the wealthiest. This raises a fundamental legal issue: whether these cancellations constitute a legitimate sovereign act or an opportunistic breach of contract. If courts apply the logic of Winstar, the sovereign act defense should fail, leaving the government liable for damages to affected contractors.

In sum, contractors facing arbitrary contract cancellations under this administration should be prepared to challenge any assertion of the sovereign act defense. The Winstar case provides a critical precedent that underscores the principle that the government cannot use its sovereign status to escape liability when its actions are motivated by self-interest rather than legitimate public policy concerns. Contractors must actively assert their rights under the terms of their contracts, as the government’s defense will not prevail in these circumstances.

William Jams Spriggs