Big Tech billionaire backlash: Protest billboards call out Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg
More Perfect Union has started a similar form of protest in multiple states. Here's what we know:
Message behind 'We Make, They Take' billboards
Fifty new billboards have gone up across eight states, according to an emailed news release. They are bright yellow-green and white, depict certain billionaires, and have messages calling out corporate and political exploitation of working-class Americans. The billboards are written with things like "We make minimum wage. They take our Medicaid," and "We make big tech rich. They take control of our lives."
Who is on the 'We Make, They Take' billboards?
There are four different designs of the billboards. Each one has a different billionaire including Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla), Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Meta), Jeff Bezos (Amazon's founder) and Peter Thiel (PayPal's founder).
Welome to 'Billionaire Bunker': How Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez live in Florida's elite enclave
Where are the 'We Make, They Take' billboards?
The billboards are located in the following cities across nine states:
What is More Perfect Union?
More Perfect Union calls itself a nonprofit education, advocacy and journalism organization dedicated to building power for the working class.
"We're calling out a simple truth: Working people keep this country running, but corporations keep taking more and more," said More Perfect Union Founder and Executive Director Faiz Shakir. "What we're seeing today is politically sanctioned exploitation of America's working class − the nurses, teachers, warehouse workers and service employees who hold this country together − all to benefit a handful of billionaire oligarchs and multinational corporations. This campaign calls that out and is designed to start a conversation in the places where it matters most."
Miguel Legoas is a Deep South Connect Team Reporter for Gannett/USA Today. Find him on Instagram @miguelegoas and email at mlegoas@gannett.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
E.P.A. Plans to Revoke the Legal Basis for Tackling Climate Change
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said on Tuesday the Trump administration would revoke the scientific determination that underpins the government's legal authority to combat climate change. Speaking on a conservative podcast called 'Ruthless,' Mr. Zeldin said the E.P.A. planned to rescind the 2009 declaration, known as the 'endangerment finding,' which concluded that planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. The Obama and Biden administrations used that determination to set strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, power plants and other industrial sources of pollution. 'Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,' Mr. Zeldin said. He said the finding and the regulations that stemmed from it 'cost Americans a lot of money.' The formal announcement will come on Tuesday at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, according to a public schedule issued by the Indiana Governor, Mike Braun, who is expected to participate. Molly Vaseliou, Mr. Zeldin's spokeswoman, did not respond to requests for comment. Without the endangerment finding, the E.P.A. would be left with no authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that are accumulating in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, leading to rising seas, fiercer storms, more deadly heat waves and other extreme weather events. The proposal would be President Trump's most significant step yet to derail federal climate efforts. It marks a notable shift in the administration's position from one that had downplayed the threat of global warming to one that essentially flatly denies the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
'Trump Accounts' Are The Next Generation's First Steps Toward Financial Independence
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 03: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (C) is congratulated by his ... More fellow Republicans after signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act during an enrollment ceremony in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol on July 03, 2025 in Washington, DC. The House passed the sweeping tax and spending bill after winning over fiscal hawks and moderate Republicans. The bill makes permanent President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement and temporarily cut taxes on tips, while at the same time cutting funding for Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, clean energy and raises the nation's debit limit by $5 trillion. (Photo by) On July 4th, Congress signed into law H.R.1 – more commonly known as 'One Big Beautiful Bill' – one of the most sweeping policy reforms from the White House in recent memory, and among the most controversial. A seismic shift in U.S. fiscal policy, the bill ushers in significant tax cuts and Medicaid cuts, as well as increases to funding for immigration enforcement and the debt ceiling. The coverage and debate over the legislation have obscured arguably one of its most impactful components – the introduction of savings accounts for all children born in the U.S. over the next four years. The administration is calling these accounts 'Trump Accounts.' Title aside, this initiative has the potential to fundamentally change how – and how many – Americans invest for their children's futures. As believers in the power of long-term investing, I have long been a proponent of baby investment accounts (see: How Newborns Can Invest Like Warren Buffett). Here are the basics: While financial and tax experts may quibble with some of the provisions relative to other types of savings, the bill offers several clear benefits. Universality Education savings accounts already existed before Trump Accounts. State-based 529 plans offer tax-free accounts, but there are no federal contributions. 'Baby bonds' have been proposed and discussed for years, usually with means-tests and invested in bonds. Each of these types of plans would support some children with an education savings account. In contrast, every baby gets a Trump Account. The newborn's family does not have to be financially savvy or 'in the know' to make this happen. While a lack of a means test can be debated, it made passage in Congress a simpler task and will make the administration of these accounts much simpler. Strength of Public Equities Another distinctive feature of Trump Accounts is that they will be invested in equities, not bonds or a mix of investments, allowing all children with them to participate in the growth of the equity market. To get a rough sense of the numbers, let's model the outcome if this program had been implemented 18 years ago. If a baby born in 2006 had invested a $1,000 government contribution at the end of that year (not great timing, right before the Global Financial Crisis), they would have had almost $6,000 by their 18th birthday in 2024. That is substantially higher than the $1,575 they would have had if they had invested in 10-year Treasuries. Contributions from families and employers Beyond the initial $1,000, the option to add an additional $5,000 each year through a combination of parents' contributions or via their employers could end up being the secret to this initiative's success. Recall the earlier example of a child born in 2006. If they had not only received their initial $1,000 but also an additional $5,000 contribution each year, they would have had $360,000 by the time they turned 18 (not adjusted for inflation or rising costs over that timeframe). That amount of money is transformational, providing an ability to get an education without loans, buy a home, or save for a comfortable retirement down the road. And a financially strong cohort – particularly in the wake of a generation of Americans that are saving less, buying fewer homes, and having fewer children – would make the economy stronger in turn. The obvious criticism – and a fair one – is that not every family can afford to contribute $5,000 on a yearly basis. But could their employers contribute $2,500? That amount would mean the 18-year-old had roughly $185,000 – a life-changing number. And why stop there? Friends and extended family could make contributions as birthday gifts. State or local governments could also contribute to some or all of their newborns like California does through CalKIDS. What about philanthropic organizations in targeted areas? Making contributions a common practice would make the accounts more likely to achieve their purpose. The contributions will make all the difference. It's also one of the key areas for marketing. If the perception around 529 plans is any indication, there is a lot of work to do in this regard – May 2025 study from Edward Jones found that 52% of Americans don't know about 529 plans, and 38% feel they are not saving enough for their educational goals. With all the communications firepower of the White House, they'd be well-served to be talking up this program a lot more. The success of Trump Accounts will ultimately depend on whether families actually embrace them. Without active participation and better information and awareness, these accounts risk becoming little more than a short-lived handout. And they only are slated to apply to babies born by 2028. It remains to be seen if this administration, or the ones to come, will follow through and make this program thrive. But for the sake of the future of the next generation of Americans, I hope they do.
Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Paying Most—and Least—for SNAP Under Trump Bill
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The majority of U.S. states will be required to pay a portion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in the coming years. Under current federal rules, SNAP benefits, which help some 42 million Americans across the country, are paid by the federal government but administered at the state level. All states pay half of the cost of this administration. But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to change things. Beginning in 2028, the bill will require states to cover a portion of SNAP benefits if error payments are above 6 percent, and all must pay for an additional share of program administration costs. Why It Matters This will be the first time that states have had to shoulder the responsibility of paying SNAP benefits, and numerous lawmakers, poverty experts and advocacy groups have warned against the policy. How Does The Cost Share Work? Erroneous payments are when too much or too little is paid to a SNAP recipient. States will have to pay a certain percentage based on thresholds set by the bill: Error rate below 6 percent: No cost-sharing required 6 to 8 percent error rate: 5 percent cost-sharing 8 to 10 percent error rate: 10 percent cost-sharing Over 10 percent error rate: 15 percent cost-sharing Which States Will Pay The Most? Based on fiscal year 2024 data, 43 states will be expected to pay up for a portion of SNAP benefits when the new rules begin in 2028, according to data compiled by the Food Action Research Center (FRAC). California is poised to pay the most of all 50 states if its error rate doesn't come down. With a 15 percent requirement based on an error rate of 11 percent, the Golden State will be expected to pay an estimated $1.9 billion in benefit costs and $661 million in administrative costs, bringing its total to just shy of $2.6 billion if its error rate does not drop. Other top payers will be New York ($1.9 billion), Florida ($1.3 billion), Texas ($1 billion) and Pennsylvania ($982 million), according to FRAC's analysis. Which States Will Pay The Least? Based on 2024 error rates, only Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming will not have to cough up for a share of the benefits, though they will still be required to bear more of the administrative costs. Some Exceptions Senate Republicans added a carve-out to address concerns from Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, letting her state delay cost-sharing due to its high SNAP error rates. To follow reconciliation rules, the delay option was extended to any state with a SNAP error rate — when multiplied by 1.5 — that hits 20 percent or more. If a state meets that threshold in FY 2025, it can delay cost-sharing until FY 2029; if it qualifies in FY 2026, it can delay until FY 2030. But states can only use this delay once, based on either year, not both. Based on FY 2024 data, likely beneficiaries include Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C, according to FRAC. What People Are Saying FRAC in its analysis: "Taken together, these provisions represent an unprecedented cost-shift from the federal government to the states, one that forces local leaders to make painful tradeoffs between essential services and rising administrative demands. As states grapple with tighter budgets, reduced federal support, and growing caseload complexity, the core promise of SNAP — as a reliable safeguard against hunger and hardship — is at risk. The Trump- and Republican-passed budget reconciliation bill, OBBBA, not only weakens a cornerstone anti-poverty program; it reshapes the relationship between federal and state governments in ways that could prove devastating for millions of families, workers, and communities across the country." Jennifer Greenfield, associate professor at the University of Denver who specializes in the intersection of health and wealth disparities, told Newsweek: "The proposed federal 'savings' are not savings at all—it's a shift of the costs to our already cash-strapped states and families. The net result will be to increase hunger and financial instability among households with children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans—while also sending tens of thousands of people into unemployment." House Speaker Mike Johnson told CBS News Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan in May: "The states are not properly administering this because they don't have enough skin in the game. So what we've done in the bill is add some- just a modest state sharing component, so that they'll pay attention to that, so that we can reduce fraud. Why? Again, so that it is preserved for the people that need it the most." What Happens Next Cost-sharing requirements will begin in 2028. How much each state will have to pay will depend on its future error rates.
