SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In a new fact sheet, EPI Labor Counsel Celine McNicholas and Director of Policy Heidi Shierholz ask the question, "Whose interests are served by repealing existing regulations and curbing future ones?" In light of recent anti-regulation efforts pushed by Congress and the Trump administration, the authors explain that regulations often help working people, while deregulation primarily benefits corporate interests and can have devastating consequences for
In a new fact sheet, EPI Labor Counsel Celine McNicholas and Director of Policy Heidi Shierholz ask the question, "Whose interests are served by repealing existing regulations and curbing future ones?" In light of recent anti-regulation efforts pushed by Congress and the Trump administration, the authors explain that regulations often help working people, while deregulation primarily benefits corporate interests and can have devastating consequences for the economy. Not only does regulation help make the economy more fair, but the lack of sensible regulations can lead to economic catastrophe and the loss of millions of jobs.
Regulations provide the structure and the details that a law needs to function. They are not static, and can be updated to adapt to changing norms. Research has found that regulations have a neutral or modestly positive effect on employment. While regulations may sometimes cause a reduction of jobs in one area, new jobs are will be created in another.
"The belief that financial markets can 'self-regulate' is a myth," said Shierholz. "Deregulation and lax enforcement played a major role in the housing bubble and the financial crisis. Nearly nine million jobs were lost in the resulting Great Recession in 2008 and 2009."
The fact sheet outlines various regulations that Congress is attempting to repeal or has repealed using a rarely used procedure called the Congressional Review Act--such as the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order and the OSHA recordkeeping rule--which directly benefit working people and which hold private interests responsible for workplace rights and safety violations.
The fact sheet also explains proposed congressional actions that limit future regulations from being implemented--such as the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, which would make congressional approval required for a major rule to take effect. This would make it more difficult to hold private interests accountable.
"In examining efforts to repeal regulations, it is important to consider whose interests are served," said McNicholas. "We should be skeptical of claims that regulation hurts the economy, because the truth is that deregulation often hurts working people and allows corporate interests to get a free pass on public accountability."
EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States. EPI's research helps policymakers, opinion leaders, advocates, journalists, and the public understand the bread-and-butter issues affecting ordinary Americans.
(202) 775-8810"The need for federal regulations to address this type of misinformation and prevent AI deepfakes from upending our elections and undermining our democracy has never been more urgent," said one advocate.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen on Wednesday applauded pop star Taylor Swift for using her platform and her endorsement of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race to go beyond simply expressing support for the Democratic candidate—choosing instead to also call attention to artificial intelligence and how it's been used to spread misinformation.
"Recently I was made aware that AI of 'me' falsely endorsing Donald Trump's presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation," wrote Swift in an Instagram post announcing her endorsement of Harris.
Swift was referring to a false AI-generated image, known as a deepfake, that showed the singer-songwriter's likeness dressed as Uncle Sam with the caption, "Taylor Wants You to Vote for Donald Trump." Trump shared the image on his Truth Social account in August, along with fake images of people appearing to wear shirts that read, "Swifties for Trump."
The images were shared days after the Federal Election Commission's Republican chair, Sean Cooksey, had announced the agency would not establish new rules to prohibit political candidates or groups from misrepresenting opponents or issues with deceptive images.
Cooksey had said the FEC wanted to wait and see "how AI is actually used on the ground before considering any new rules"—a decision Public Citizen denounced as "shameful."
On Wednesday, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert noted that the way AI and deepfakes can and will be used has already been made clear, partially by Swift's experience.
"Taylor Swift—who has been a victim of both AI-generated election misinformation and AI-generated non-consensual intimate deepfakes—is correct in identifying the immensely damaging harms that could result from the spread of AI misinformation, including abuses of our elections."
In addition to the images shared by Trump, billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a Trump supporter, posted on social media a deepfake video that showed a manipulated image of Harris.
"The need for federal regulations to address this type of misinformation and prevent AI deepfakes from upending our elections and undermining our democracy," said Gilbert, "has never been more urgent."
"The ultra-wealthy are avoiding nearly $2 trillion in taxes every 10 years," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "That's where we ought to go to start making progress."
The Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee said during a hearing Wednesday that instead of tossing Social Security's sacred guarantee "in the trash" by cutting benefits, lawmakers should crack down on mega-rich tax dodgers as a way to keep the New Deal program fully solvent for decades to come.
"The ultra-wealthy are avoiding nearly $2 trillion in taxes every 10 years," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said during a Senate Budget Committee hearing. "That is enough to keep Social Security whole till the end of this century."
"That's where we ought to go to start making progress," Wyden added.
The senator's remarks came during a hearing titled "Social Security Forever: Delivering Benefits and Protecting Retirement Security," which featured testimony from Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O'Malley and several expert witnesses.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who presided over the hearing, used his opening remarks to blast GOP proposals to raise the retirement age, a change he said would "especially hurt low-income retirees."
Whitehouse, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, acknowledged that some Republicans have pushed back on the notion that the GOP wants to cut Social Security benefits. But if Social Security benefit cuts "really are off the table," the senator said, "that leaves only one other option to prevent insolvency: raise revenue."
"There is no third option. And that means it's time to get to work identifying smart, fair ways to raise revenue, fund the Social Security Trust Fund, and preserve and protect benefits," Whitehouse continued. "Fortunately, there are solutions that would both extend Social Security solvency indefinitely with zero benefit cuts and make our tax system fairer, like my Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act."
At today's @SenateBudget hearing, @SenWhitehouse slams Republican plans to slash $1.5 trillion from Social Security.
Whitehouse plans to strengthen Social Security by requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share! pic.twitter.com/nWRJt3hUWp
— Social Security Works (@SSWorks) September 11, 2024
Wednesday's hearing came in the heat of a presidential race in which Social Security has featured prominently, with Democrats warning that GOP nominee Donald Trump would push for deep benefit cuts if he's elected to another White House term.
During Tuesday night's debate, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris made the only mention of Social Security, vowing to protect the program that lifted 28 million people out of poverty last year.
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said in a statement following the debate that while Harris reinforced "her commitment to Social Security and Medicare," Trump "was mum on the topic."
"At least when Trump has nothing to say, he cannot compound his many conflicting and confusing statements about Social Security and Medicare—from calling Social Security a 'Ponzi scheme' to saying he's 'open' to 'cutting entitlements' and proposing to eliminate some of the taxes that fund Social Security," said Richtman. "Tonight's debate underlines the fundamental reality that one candidate in this race will truly protect Social Security and Medicare—and that is Kamala Harris."
According to the latest trustees report, Social Security is positioned to fully pay all benefits and administrative costs until 2035 and is 90% funded for the next quarter century.
Progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups have argued for years that the best way to ensure Social Security's long-term solvency is clear: make the wealthy pay their fair share into the program. Due to the payroll tax cap, millionaires stopped contributing to Social Security just 60 days into 2024.
"Warren Buffett stops paying into Social Security 30 seconds into the new year," O'Malley said during his testimony at Wednesday's Senate hearing, "and the people that clean these buildings pay in all through their paychecks."
"People are standing up, risking everything, to protest the sale of weapons that have slaughtered millions," said one activist, who lamented that "instead of being celebrated as the heroes they truly are, they're met with violence."
Police in the southern Australian state of Victoria on Wednesday attacked anti-war protesters with so-called "less lethal" weapons including stun grenades, hard foam projectiles, and pepper spray outside a major international arms convention in Melbourne amid Israel's Australia-backed annihilation of Gaza.
Protesters gathered outside the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center, where the three-day Land Forces International Land Defense Exposition kicked off on Wednesday. Organizers describe the event as "the premier gateway to the land defense markets of Australia and the region, and a platform for interaction with major prime contractors from the United States and Europe."
Protest organizers—who included the groups Students for Palestine and Disrupt Wars—said the demonstration was a stand against the arms trade in general and Australia's and other countries' support for Israel, which is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice.
"We're protesting to stand up for all those who have been killed by the type of weapons on display at the convention."
Protesters shouted slogans including "Free Palestine!" and "Shame!" as attendees entered the expo venue.
"We're protesting to stand up for all those who have been killed by the type of weapons on display at the convention," Students for Palestine organizer Jasmine Duff explained. "Many of the weapons inside the convention center are advertised as battle-tested. In the context of Israeli weapons firms, which are present, this means tested through killing civilians in Gaza."
Since the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel, Israeli bombs and bullets have killed or maimed more than 145,000 Palestinians in Gaza. The Australian government has approved more than 300 export permits for military and dual-use equipment to Israel since 2016.
Duff said police "used serious weapons on peace activists that should be banned for use on demonstrators, including pepper spray, which is classified as a chemical weapon."
"They hit us with batons, including hitting one man so hard he had to go to hospital, and they shot us with rubber bullets," she added.
Police say they acted after some protesters pelted officers with rocks, bottles, horse manure, and a liquid substance they claimed was acid. They also said that protesters mistook hard foam projectiles for rubberized bullets. Officials said 39 people were arrested for alleged offenses including assault, obstruction, arson, and blocking roads. At least two dozen officers reportedly required medical treatment.
Human rights groups decried the heavy-handed police response to the mostly peaceful protest.
"As reports emerge of police using tear gas, pepper spray, and stun grenades during protests in Melbourne, Australia, Amnesty calls for all allegations of misuse of force to be promptly and impartially investigated," said Amnesty International Australia.
Activists said they will keep up pressure on the Australian government for as long as it supports Israel's slaughter in Gaza. The organizers of Wednesday's protest said they are planning another demonstration outside Hanwha Defence Australia, followed by a vigil in Batman Park.
"Direct action is a bedrock of democracy," Disrupt Land Forces organizer Caroline da Silva toldThe Age. "Directly acting to prevent harm is in the DNA of all people of conscience."
"The anti-militarist movement on this continent has grown and matured very rapidly since Israel's attacks on Gaza began," she added. "We are deeply committed, and we are growing stronger. Change will come."
On Tuesday, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said the Labor-led government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supports the recent decision by Britain's Labour government to suspend some arms export licenses to Israel.
"I welcome the decision of my U.K. counterpart," Wong toldThe Guardian. "It reflects what we have been advocating throughout this conflict. Palestinian civilians cannot be made to pay the price of defeating Hamas."