A better approach is to tax income from wealth more fairly: higher rates on very high incomes, fairer taxation of capital gains, limits on stepped-up basis at death for large estates, stronger IRS enforcement, and tighter rules against borrowing-against-assets strategies that let billionaires live lavishly while reporting modest taxable income.¹⁰
I would also add a broad, high-threshold tax on luxury and speculative property: mansions, third and fourth homes, vacant luxury residences, private aircraft, yachts, ultra-luxury cars, and high-value collectibles. When great wealth turns into private privilege, the tax system should be waiting at the door. That kind of tax is easier for ordinary people to understand. If a teacher pays taxes on every paycheck, a billionaire should not get a free ride while turning wealth into mansions, jets, and political influence.
Finally, I part ways with Reich on the Electoral College. I do not favor abolishing it outright. The United States is not only a national democracy; it is a federal republic. States and regions matter, and a president should have to build a broad coalition across different kinds of communities. But defending the Electoral College does not mean defending every distortion in the current system. The goal should not be to erase the states. It should be to stop erasing voters inside the states.
Winner-take-all rules make millions of voters invisible. A Republican in California and a Democrat in Texas should not be erased. States should bind electors to the voters’ choice and consider proportional allocation of electoral votes by statewide popular vote. The congressional-district method used by Maine and Nebraska is less attractive unless partisan gerrymandering is first substantially curbed. Otherwise, presidential outcomes could be manipulated through district lines. Expanding the House would also make representation, and therefore the Electoral College, more population-sensitive without abolishing it.¹¹
This is the path reformers should take: not radical overreach, and not passive resignation. We can demand ethics rules that apply to everyone in power. We can demand fair maps. We can demand voting rights that mean something. We can demand independent journalism and academic freedom. We can demand small-donor democracy. We can demand tax rules that do not let great fortunes hide behind complexity. We can demand Electoral College reform that preserves the republic while making more voters count.
Professor Reich is right to call for mending. But mending is not smashing. A torn fabric is repaired with careful stitching, strong thread, and patience.
That is the work now. Demand reforms built to last. Outrage may start the work, but only pragmatism finishes it.
Bibliography / Endnotes
1. UC Berkeley profile of Robert Reich; Robert Reich, “The Real Meaning of July 4, 2026,” Substack, July 4, 2026. 2. Robert Reich, “Sunday Thought: How To Begin the Mending?,” Substack, July 5, 2026. 3. U.S. Constitution, Article III, Good Behavior Clause; Brennan Center analysis of Supreme Court term-limit proposals. 4. U.S. Office of Government Ethics guidance on conflict-of-interest laws and the president/vice president;18 U.S.C. § 208. 5. U.S. Department of Justice, Justice Manual provisions on White House contacts; Constitution Annotated overview of the presidential pardon power. 6. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Elections Clause; Rucho v. Common Cause; Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. 7. Voting Rights Act of 1965, Sections 2 and 5; Shelby County v. Holder; Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. 8. Sherman Act; Clayton Act; DOJ/FTC merger guidelines; Associated Press v. United States; Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society. 9. Buckley v. Valeo; Citizens United v. FEC; Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett; recent Supreme Court campaign-finance rulings on party spending. 10. Tax Policy Center and OECD materials on wealth taxes; Tax Policy Center on capital-gains taxation; IRS guidance on inherited-property basis. 11. Article II elector appointment authority; Chiafalo v. Washington; Maine and Nebraska electoral-vote allocation systems; National Archives explanation of Electoral College allocation; House history materials on the 435-member House cap.