Who Pays as Power Fails to Cut Everyday Costs

More than 70% of Americans surveyed said the federal government should do more about affordability, but is choosing not to. Six in 10 said it should focus on bringing down grocery, electricity and gas prices instead of raising household incomes. The POLITICO Poll found that respondents identified rising costs, rather than stagnant wages, as the central problem by a two-to-one margin in repeated surveys.

At MANNA FoodBank in western North Carolina, CEO Claire Neal described the people behind those numbers: “We're seeing lots of folks who have never struggled before and never anticipated to be standing in line at a food pantry.” In an August survey, about 55% said the cost of living in their area was the worst they could remember. Nearly two-thirds said moving up the socioeconomic ladder was harder or impossible than in the past.

The costs land below

Jennifer Jones Austin, co-chair of the National True Cost of Living Coalition, said lower prices seem “an easier fix because the government has not demonstrated that they're going to change the wage structure.” She warned, though, that prices and wages connect: “if your resources are depressed, you will never be able to build assets, which in America is essential for economic security.”

The proposals POLITICO Magazine collected range from tariff cuts and student-loan interest limits to social housing, food banks and tax deductions. Each offers a different route through the same hierarchy: lawmakers, public authorities and companies make the decisions, while households face bills they have little power to set.

Seattle Social Housing Developer, a public authority funded through a 5% tax on employers paying individual workers more than $1 million a year, acquired Seattle’s Elara, a 150-unit apartment complex, in 2026. Rents ranged from $665 for a low-income studio to $3,767 for a two-bedroom at market rates. The authority’s interim CEO, Tiffani McCoy, called social housing “permanently affordable,” publicly owned in perpetuity and free from market speculation. The authority said half of its new construction portfolio would focus on family-sized units.

But the model still depends on political choices about revenue. McCoy said Seattle’s millionaires’ tax would provide more than $100 million in its first year. Other places could consider property or sales tax increases, bonds or a vacancy tax. “What we're lacking is political will,” she said.

Relief by permission

Food banks are expanding warehouses, refrigeration, volunteer and job-training programs, and referral networks as costs and demand rise while federal resources decline. Triada Stampas, president and CEO of Fulfill, described the expansions. Rebeckah Freeman Adcock, top lobbyist for Feeding America, said philanthropies “can't treat government relations like a 'nice to have.'” The article said last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill cut food aid and subsidized health care while extending a charity-specific deduction for taxpayers and corporations. When last year’s government shutdown cut off SNAP benefits to millions, food banks faced long lines, and some pantries limited how often families could collect food. Liza Lieberman, an advocate with MAZON, said, “We're obviously on the defensive.”

A proposal to cap federal student-loan interest at 2% would lower rates that run roughly 6.5% to 9% for many borrowers. Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who has no student-loan debt, called the idea “common sense” and asked, “We can control those rates, so why wouldn't we?” Borrowers can't count on it: the measure remains a proposal.

Sending checks or lowering taxes can quickly put money in people’s pockets, Victoria Guida wrote, but can also feed price increases and add to federal debt. Interest payments on federal borrowing had exceeded defense spending. Addressing deficits would mean making decisions about taxes and Social Security and Medicare benefits, with possible consequences for people’s ability to afford necessities. Guida put the political bargain plainly: “the only solution to this cycle is pain,” and politicians must decide what kind and who bears it.

Market power, measured in eggs

A POLITICO analysis detailed federal investigators’ allegations that three major egg producers coordinated bids through Egg Clearinghouse, Inc., an exchange whose bids feed into price quotes used in contracts with Walmart and other large retailers. The average supermarket price for a dozen eggs climbed from $1.93 in January 2022 to $4.82 a year later. Court records cited alleged weekly calls among executives to “bid up” prices, and a Cal-Maine executive allegedly wrote, “Let's hold it today.” The companies didn't respond to requests for comment.

The Justice Department filed a complaint and proposed settlement on June 29. The deal would impose a fine of about $3 million, require an independent monitor for five years and provide 53 million eggs for food banks in states involved in the case. The settlement hadn't received court approval. The companies wouldn't have to admit wrongdoing and would avoid trial. Angela Huffman, head of Farm Action, criticized the terms: “If you steal a truck, for example, you're going to jail. But then these executives were accused of taking millions of dollars out of the pockets of the American public over a period of years, and the result was just a slap on the wrist.”

Politicians have attached affordability promises to elections, from tax deductions to tariff exemptions. Yet the poll found that voters across party lines believe the federal government is choosing not to act, even as limited proposals, unsettled legislation and a negotiated egg settlement continue. GOP communications strategist Kevin Madden put the challenge this way: “Elections are about asking about the right to fix it and then bearing the responsibility of living up to that promise.”