November, 12 2019, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sanders contact: Keane_Bhatt@sanders.senate.gov
Lee contact: Nissa.Koerner@mail.house.gov
Tlaib contact: Denzel.McCampbell@mail.house.gov
Sanders, Lee, and Tlaib Partner to Combat Outrageous CEO Pay
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which rewrites the federal tax code to tackle the inequality crisis created by corporate America's unrestrained greed.
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, which rewrites the federal tax code to tackle the inequality crisis created by corporate America's unrestrained greed.
The typical restaurant employee at McDonald's would have to work for more than 2,000 years to earn what the company's CEO Chris Kempczinski received last year. A retail worker at Gap Inc. would have to work for more than 3,000 years to receive the annual compensation of Gap's former CEO Art Peck. Peck's pay was increased by 33 percent in 2018, even after he presided over years of declines in sales and stock prices.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would pressure corporations to curb these outrageous pay gaps that are the norm today, by imposing graduated taxes for companies that pay their CEO more than 50 times the pay of the median worker. The tax penalties would begin at 0.5 percentage points and rise to 5 percentage points for firms compensating their chief executives at more than 500 times the rate of their workers. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies found that 80 percent of S&P 500 firms paid their CEOs more than 100 times the pay of their median worker.
Many of the firms lavishing multi-million-dollar compensation packages on their top executives rely on taxpayer support--through public housing, nutrition assistance, and Medicaid, for example--to assist full-time workers who struggle with poverty wages.
"In America today, ordinary workers at some of the richest corporations are making poverty wages. Meanwhile, we've got a class of corporate CEOs who make hundreds--sometimes thousands--of times more than their employees," said Sanders. "The last time I checked, corporations got by just fine when CEOs made a million bucks a year--one-tenth of what they make now. All around the world today, large, successful businesses manage to be profitable while treating their workers with dignity and not handing out obscene pay packages to their CEOs. If America's corporate boards can't understand the absurdity of paying their CEO friends--in one year--more than their workers will earn in a lifetime, then the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will help them figure it out."
"In the last four decades, inequality has ballooned in our nation and more and more wealth is going to those at the top while workers' wages, especially for workers of color, have remained stagnant," said Congresswoman Barbara Lee. "It is unjust and unacceptable that the CEOs of major corporations are making an average of 287 times more than their average worker - with some CEOs making upwards of 1000 times more. The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will incentivize companies to reduce the CEO-worker pay gaps and pay their workers the wages they deserve. Because if companies can afford to pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars, they can afford to raise wages for their employees."
"Corporate greed is a disease that has long inflicted this country--income inequality and the pay gap between CEOs and their employees are just two of its symptoms that are harming everyday people," said Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. "In 2018, for example, General Motors' CEO made nearly 300 times more than the median income of an employee there. We have had enough. The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act will help ensure there is more fairness in the workplace when it comes to wages. It's common sense legislation on the path toward justice for all."
In the 1970s, the average middle-class American worker could raise a family and save for retirement with their pay. CEOs of successful U.S. corporations in the 1970s received about $1 million annually--roughly 20 to 30 times the average pay of their company's middle-class workers. At present, a CEO at a Fortune 500 firm receives about $20 million per year--200 to 300 times the average pay of a typical worker, according to research by the AFL-CIO.
Americans across the political spectrum are outraged by the extreme gaps between CEO and worker pay. According to a nationwide survey, the typical American would limit CEO pay to no more than 6 times that of the average worker. About 62% of all Americans--52% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats--favor capping CEO pay relative to worker pay.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act would raise roughly $150 billion over 10 years if current compensation trends continue. The bill also requires the Treasury Department to issue regulations to prevent tax avoidance, including against companies that increase the use of contractors rather than employees. Pay-ratio data for privately held corporations would also be made public, just as publicly held corporations are required to make public under current law.
The Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act is endorsed by the AFL-CIO, Americans for Democratic Action, Campaign for America's Future, Center for Popular Democracy, Communications Workers of America, Coalition on Human Needs, EPI Policy Center, Franciscan Action Network, Institute for Policy Studies/Global Economy Project, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Jobs With Justice, National Council of Churches, National Federation of Federal Employees, National Health Care for the Homeless Council, NETWORK, Other98, Our Revolution, People's Action, People Demanding Action, Public Citizen, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Social Security Works, Strong Economy for All, Take on Wall Street, and the Working Families Party.
The bill was cosponsored by Representatives Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Norton (D-D.C.), Huffman (D-Calif.), Jayapal (D-Wash.), Khanna (D-Calif.), Thompson (D-Miss.), DeLauro (D-Conn.), Haaland (D-N.M.), Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Pressley (D-Mass.), Garcia (D-Ill.), Omar (D-Minn.), Takano (D-Calif.), Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) and McGovern (D-Mass.).
Read the bill summary here.
Read the legislative text here.
Read an FAQ here.
Read a support letter by 28 major economic justice organizations here.
Watch the bill's release video here.
LATEST NEWS
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular