SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
chuck grassley
'Tell Us Where That Money Is Going': Sanders Bill Would Penalize Pentagon for Failing Audits
"We have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only major federal agency that has never passed an independent audit."
Jul 30, 2026
Bipartisan legislation reintroduced Thursday by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Chuck Grassley would impose budgetary penalties on the US Department of Defense for failing to pass a complete and independent audit.
If enacted, the Audit the Pentagon Act would withhold 2% of the budget of any Defense Department office that fails to achieve a clean audit, and the funds would be returned to the US Treasury.
The Pentagon has failed eight consecutive audits without any consequences, as lawmakers from both parties continue to approve massive budget increases each year. For fiscal year 2027, the Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in total military spending as it wages war against Iran with no end in sight.
“The Pentagon has been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Thursday. “Year after year, the Pentagon fails an audit, and year after year, Congress hands it another blank check."
"At a moment when the administration has dragged us into an unconstitutional war with Iran and is demanding the largest military budget in our history to pay for it, the Pentagon still cannot tell us where trillions of dollars have gone," Sanders added. "We have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only major federal agency that has never passed an independent audit.”
The Audit the Pentagon Act has 10 Senate co-sponsors so far: Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
The latest version of the bill, which was first introduced in 2021, comes as the Trump administration is seeking tens of billions of dollars in funding for the Iran war, which Congress never authorized. Experts have warned for months that the Pentagon is not being transparent about the war's financial cost, which is likely to be far higher than the department's official estimate of $37.5 billion.
“You have the largest agency in terms of discretionary spending for eight years in a row unable to explain and defend the funding that they have, and we have seen enormous examples of waste and fraud,” Sanders told NBC News in an interview. “Tell us where that money is going, period.”
In a press release, Sanders' office highlighted several examples of what it described as "waste and fraud" at the Pentagon:
- Almost $141 billion spent on a Northrop Grumman ballistic missile project that was supposed to cost $77 billion, and which is seven years behind schedule;
- More than $126 billion spent on a General Dynamics submarine program which has run $17 billion over cost. The per-sub cost has nearly doubled since 2019;
- More than $12 billion spent on one missile battery from Leidos and Dynetics that the Pentagon can’t even confirm works; and
- More than $6 billion spent over 16 years on a Raytheon project to build a GPS system. The Pentagon cancelled the project in April due to “insurmountable” problems with its product.
Earlier this month, a version of the Audit the Pentagon Act was attached to the House's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate Democratic caucus blocked the upper chamber's version of the NDAA earlier this month over President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Outrageous’: GOP Budget Includes $1 Billion in Taxpayer Funds for Trump Ballroom
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," said one critic.
May 05, 2026
Even though President Donald Trump has long insisted that his proposed White House luxury ballroom would be funded by private donations, congressional Republicans unveiled legislation on Monday that would put US taxpayers on the hook for the project.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a proposal for a budget reconciliation package that includes $30 billion more in funds for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $3.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and $2.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
Tucked into the proposal is $1 billion for what is described as an "East Wing modernization project, including above-ground and below-ground security features."
Given that Trump is planning to build his ballroom on the area of the White House's East Wing that he demolished last year, this means that $1 billion in taxpayer money would be going to the president's vanity project.
Democratic officials immediately pounced on news that their Republican counterparts are planning to funnel $1 billion to the ballroom project, noting that the budget plan comes as Americans are struggling with the surging costs of energy and food.
"Zero dollars to lower costs," wrote Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee. "Zero dollars to protect your healthcare. A massive check for an out-of-control ICE, and $1 billion for Trump’s ballroom. This Republican budget bill is a disaster."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) responded to the GOP ballroom plan by declaring, "Oh hell no."
"Spiking prices, SCOTUS attacking democracy, collapsing faith in the US government," Casten added, "and the GOP is prioritizing sending more money to murderous ICE agents and Trump's ballroom vanity project. This is offensive."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) contrasted the GOP finding money to fund the ballroom with its unwillingness to extend enhanced subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
"Add the ballroom to the laundry list of things Trump said someone else would pay for," Ansari wrote. "Ultimately, of course, it’s always the American people footing the bill for his outrageous pet projects. A $1BN price tag while he rips away your healthcare. Sickening."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) welcomed the chance to have his Republican colleagues go on the record in favor of funding the ballroom.
"Just flagging that now everyone gets an up or down vote on the ballroom!" he wrote.
Elected Democrats weren't the only ones to hammer the GOP for the proposal to fund Trump's ballroom.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called the GOP plan a "corrupt absurdity" that would make taxpayers shell out $1 billion for the president's "grandiose, bombastic, vanity project."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," added Gilbert, who decried the plans for increased ICE funding as "abhorrent."
Kristen Crowell, executive director of Families Over Billionaires, denounced the ballroom funding plan as "a glaring symbol of misplaced priorities and grift," while also calling attention to other harmful aspects of the GOP's budget proposal.
"At a time when families are struggling to afford housing, child care, and other basic necessities," Crowell said, "the White House and Republicans in Congress are proposing to pour tens of billions of dollars into an already bloated and unaccountable deportation machine—while also carving out funding for the president’s own luxury projects."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Destroys Another Guardrail of Democracy: Inspectors General
Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job.
Oct 08, 2025
“Waste, fraud, and abuse.”
It’s President Donald Trump’s battle cry as he dismantles federal agencies, fires hundreds of thousands of employees, and demoralizes the workers who remain. It’s also another of his false flag operations.
Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job: inspectors general.
The Role of the IGs
In the wake of procurement scandals and President Richard Nixon’s corrupt abuse of executive power for personal ends, Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978 to establish formally the duties and responsibilities of the office. Inspectors general pursue their missions with nonpartisan objectives and have a central role in holding government accountable.
Approximately half of the 70-plus inspectors general are appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. They are the only independent offices within federal agencies designed to protect taxpayer money and root out corruption, fraud, waste, and mismanagement. IGs also investigate whistleblowers’ confidential claims.
Over the almost 50 years of their statutory existence, they have saved taxpayers billions of dollars.
Trump’s Escalating War on Independent IGs
For Trump and his allies, independent inspectors general have been a nuisance and worse. Following acquittal in his first impeachment, he replaced IGs for the intelligence community, State Department, Defense Department, Health and Human Services, and Transportation Department.
In his second term, Trump has moved more broadly and more rapidly. Typically, IGs remained in place when new presidents took office, underscoring their nonpartisan roles. But in violation of the statutory 30-day notice and “for cause” requirements for termination, Trump fired 17 of them during the first week of his second term. He had appointed several of them during his first term.
So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.
During post-termination interviews with the New York Times, the fired IGs said that their biggest concern was the “chilling effect” that their abrupt, unlawful, and unjustified terminations would have on others. Professor Timothy Snyder calls it “obeying in advance.” The inspectors general used similar language to describe their fears:
“Self-censorship”
“Why would you want to write a report that will get you fired?”
“Installing someone who has more loyalty to one person than to the mission of the office.”
“If you do the work that you’re intended to do and it’s not popular, then you will be punished.”
“Who will speak truth to power?”
The concerns were justified. Trump doesn’t want anyone speaking truth to his power.
On Tuesday, February 11, the inspector general for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Paul Martin, issued a report criticizing Trump’s proposed dismantling of that agency and outlining the disastrous consequences. The next day, Trump fired him.
Final Act of Destruction
On September 28, 2025, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that effective October 1 it was defunding the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. It was a strategic kill shot because the council is the umbrella agency supporting all of the inspectors general offices.
Beginning on October 1, what had been the website for the council stated only:
Due to a lack of apportionment of funds, this website is currently unavailable.
The same line appeared at numerous Office of Inspector General websites, including the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Justice, Interior and Veterans Affairs, and by those of AmeriCorps, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, National Archives and Records Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Smithsonian Institution, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.
Contacting the watchdog website for the National Labor Relations Board's OIG page resulted in a “404 error.” The Architect of the Capitol’s IG page said “Not found”; another new page offered only hotline information and blamed the change on a “funding issue impacting Oversight.gov functions.”
The council also runs Oversight.gov, which houses over 34,000 reports from most of the OIGs, and operates 28 OIG websites that host legally required hotlines for whistleblowers to report suspected cases of government corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. That site was down too. The council site’s link to the “Inspectors General directory” stated only: “Not Found—the requested URL was not found on this server.”
Not a Funding Issue
But the so-called “lack of funds” asserted on the inoperative council website was not the result of the simultaneous government shutdown. The council’s budget did not require additional congressional authorization.
Rather, the OMB under the leadership of Director Russell Vought decided not to fund it. Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist, was a primary architect of Project 2025—a 900-page blueprint for expanding executive power (“the unitary executive”) and imposing an ultraconservative social vision. During the 2024 campaign, Project 2025 was so toxic that Trump repeatedly disavowed and claimed to know nothing about it; as president, he’s boasting about working with Vought to implement it.
Asked about its defunding decision, the OMB asserted without evidence that it shut down the IGs because they had “become corrupt, partisan, and in some cases, have lied to the public.”
Republicans Are Concerned?!
Even Senate Republicans were outraged. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called on the White House to release the funding immediately.
So far, it hasn’t.
So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.
And remember that when Republicans in Congress say they are “outraged” at some action Trump has taken, don’t expect them to do anything about it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolutely Insane': GOP Committee Shuts Off Debate to Advance 'Extreme Ideologue' Emil Bove
"Today's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was a clear indication of MAGA Republicans' willingness to put blind loyalty to Trump before their oaths of office and duties to their constituents," said one advocate.
Jul 17, 2025
Democrats on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday said Republicans on the panel had broken several Senate rules by forcing a vote on judicial nominee Emil Bove, and questioned whether the committee's vote to advance Bove's nomination to the chamber floor was legitimate, since it took place after they walked out in protest.
As NBC News reported, a spokesperson for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Democrats are questioning whether the vote to advance Bove was officially reported out, and the question "may be up to the Senate parliamentarian" because the GOP broke several committee rules when Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) shut down debate.
The Democratic members of the committee walked out of the hearing room after Grassley said the debate would not continue regarding Bove, who was the subject of a whistleblower report that alleged he told Department of Justice lawyers to ignore court rulings that got in the way of President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda.
Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general, reportedly said the DOJ should "consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore" court orders that aimed to stop deportation flights from taking off, carrying hundreds of migrants to other countries without due process.
Earlier this week, Grassley rejected a request by Democrats on the committee to hold a hearing so the whistleblower, former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, could testify.
Grassley said he saw no reason to delay a committee vote on Bove, who in addition to being the subject of Reuveni's complaint, has been accused of belittling subordinates, making "power plays," and lacking professionalism during his tenure in New York's Southern District.
"Bove is an extreme ideologue, and his lifetime appointment sets the stage for the president and his allies to seek out favorable rulings no matter how unconstitutional their actions," said Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US. "It's reprehensible that Senate Republicans silenced a basic acknowledgement of the facts, in order to jam through judicial appointments who will be a rubber stamp for Trump's out-of-touch agenda."
Bove also refused to condemn the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and played a key role in the DOJ decision to drop federal corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bove's former role as Trump's personal attorney led 75 former state and federal judges to warn this week that his nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit was "deeply inappropriate."
"He has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump about his temperament, his poor judgment, and lack of candor in front of the court," said Durbin on Thursday. "Think of it: We're talking about a judge for life."
Ahead of the committee's proceedings on Thursday, more than 900 former DOJ attorneys joined the call for lawmakers to reject Bove's nomination, saying it was "intolerable... that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land, as it should be intolerable to anyone committed to maintaining our ordered system of justice."
But Grassley disregarded the warning and other protests from Democratic committee members as he cut off the debate over Bove during Thursday's session.
"This is out of order," Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said. "This is absolutely insane. What is the rush?"
After the rest of the Democrats left the room in protest, Booker remained in the hearing room and shouted over the votes of several other judicial nominees before joining his colleagues.
"This lacks decency. It lacks decorum. It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues," Booker said. "This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration."
Grassley denounced the concerns raised about Bove as a "political hit job," but Booker emphasized that "time and time again, there were allegations made against this nominee by independent people, by Republicans, by career professionals, and we are not listening to them or demanding answers."
As Bove's nomination headed to the Senate floor, Durbin and Booker also brought up questions about whether Bove was involved in a DOJ decision not to release files regarding convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was a former associate of Trump's and was found dead in his jail cell in 2019.
Booker wrote a letter to Bove on Wednesday, saying his "involvement in the DOJ's review of the Epstein files is a matter of significant public importance given the contradictory statements by Attorney General [Pam] Bondi concerning the existence of an Epstein 'client list' and DOJ's stated commitment to transparency. Furthermore, it warrants scrutiny whether the DOJ intentionally withheld evidence related to the trafficking and sexual abuse of minors to protect certain individuals."
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, said Booker had "correctly accused his colleagues across the aisle of abusing their power. We applaud his efforts to ensure the public could learn more about the serious allegations Bove faces, as well as the committee Democrats who walked out of the meeting in light of their Republican colleagues' actions."
"Today's Senate Judiciary Committee meeting was a clear indication of MAGA Republicans' willingness to put blind loyalty to Trump before their oaths of office and duties to their constituents," said Buchanan urging senators from both parties to reject Bove's nomination now that it has advanced to the Senate floor.
"Senators on both sides of the aisle must show their commitment to judicial independence and keep this extreme, Trump loyalist off the federal bench," she said. "Voting 'no' should not be a difficult choice for any senator with an ounce of self-respect or respect for the courts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
FTC Report Shows Big Pharma Middlemen Jack Up Prices by Up to 7,736%
Pharmacy benefit managers "are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs."
Jan 14, 2025
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday published the second part of its investigation into how prescription drug middlemen are marking up the prices of specialty generic drugs dispensed at their affiliated pharmacies by hundreds—and in some cases, thousands—of percent, underscoring what advocates say is the need for urgent action by policymakers.
The FTC's second interim staff report on consolidated pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) found that the three largest of these middlemen—CVS Health's Caremark Rx, Cigna Group's Express Scripts, and UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx—"marked up two specialty generic cancer drugs by thousands of percent and then paid their affiliated pharmacies hundreds of millions of dollars of dispensing revenue in excess of estimated acquisition costs for each drug annually."
"Of the specialty generic drugs analyzed in this report and dispensed by the 'Big Three' PBMs' affiliated pharmacies for commercial health plan members between 2020 and 2022, 63% were reimbursed at rates marked up by more than 100% over their estimated acquisition cost... while 22% were marked up by more than 1,000%," the report states.
"For the pulmonary hypertension drug tadalafil (generic Adcirca), for example, pharmacies purchased the drug at an average of $27 in 2022, yet the Big Three PBMs marked up the drug by $2,079 and paid their affiliated pharmacies $2,106, on average, for a 30-day supply of the medication on commercial claims," the publication notes. That's a staggering average markup of 7,736%.
"The FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants."
"Such significant markups allowed the Big Three PBMs and their affiliated specialty pharmacies to generate more than $7.3 billion in revenue from dispensing drugs in excess of the drugs' estimated acquisition costs from 2017-22," the FTC said. "The Big Three PBMs netted such significant revenues all while patient, employer, and other healthcare plan sponsor payments for drugs steadily increased annually."
The new analysis follows a July 2024 report that revealed Big Three PBM-affiliated pharmacies received 68% of the dispensing revenue generated by specialty drugs in 2023, a 14% increase from 2016.
"The FTC staff's second interim report finds that the three major pharmacy benefit managers hiked costs for a wide range of lifesaving drugs, including medications to treat heart disease and cancer," FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement Tuesday. "The FTC should keep using its tools to investigate practices that may inflate drug costs, squeeze independent pharmacies, and deprive Americans of affordable, accessible healthcare—and should act swiftly to stop any illegal conduct."
Khan's time as chair is limited. Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration is next week and he has named Andrew Ferguson as the next FTC chair. As Ferguson is already on the commission, his elevation to chair won't require Senate confirmation.
Greg Lopes, spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM lobby group, said Tuesday that "it's clear this report again fails to consider the entirety of the prescription drug supply chain and makes sweeping assertions about the role of PBMs disconnected from a full appreciation of their critical cost-saving role for employers, unions, taxpayers, and patients."
Last September, the FTC sued the Big Three and their affiliated group purchasing organizations for allegedly "engaging in anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices that have artificially inflated the list price of insulin drugs, impaired patients' access to lower list price products, and shifted the cost of high insulin list prices to vulnerable patients."
FTC Office of Policy Planning Director Hannah Garden-Monheit said Tuesday that the problem of PBM price inflation "is growing at an alarming rate, which means there is an urgent need for policymakers to address it."
To that end, U.S. Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Transparency Act of 2023, a bill backed by the AARP aimed at increasing transparency and "holding PBMs accountable for deceptive and unfair practices that drive up prescription drug costs and force independent pharmacies out of business."
"This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes."
Responding to the FTC report, Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for healthcare at the American Economic Liberties Project—a corporate accountability and antitrust advocacy group—said in a statement Tuesday that "the FTC's second interim report lays bare the blatant profiteering by PBM giants, which are marking up lifesaving drugs like cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis treatments by thousands of percent and forcing patients to pay the price."
"By steering prescriptions for the most expensive specialty generic drugs to their own pharmacies, PBMs are raking in billions in excess revenue—$7.3 billion over just five years—while squeezing independent pharmacies and leaving patients and health plan sponsors with skyrocketing costs," Freer added. "This report is a call to action for policymakers to dismantle these exploitative schemes, outlaw the rebate system driving up prices, and restore fairness and affordability to the U.S. healthcare system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Medicare Turns 58, It Still Must Be Protected and Expanded
Despite the demise of Build Back Better, we should not give up on expanding traditional Medicare. Real change takes time and persistence.
Jul 31, 2023
President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law 58 years ago Sunday—on July 30, 1965. Before Medicare, most American seniors could not obtain health insurance; they had to rely on charity or help from relatives with medical bills.
"Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness,” said President Johnson at the signing ceremony. “And the time has now arrived to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection."
Medicare was modeled on a typical Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan in 1965. The average health insurance plan 58 years ago did not include hearing, vision, or dental coverage. As Kaiser Health News points out, “Back in 1965, life expectancy was lower and health care (including dental) was more affordable.”
“When Medicare was created, its architects assumed expansion… in terms of benefits. (But) they didn’t anticipate the shift in American politics to the right.”
Today, life expectancy is longer and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. But traditional Medicare still does not cover hearing, vision, and dental care—leaving beneficiaries to bear the full cost of care for their ears, eyes, and teeth. Hearing aids, dental crowns, and eyeglasses can amount to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses, which many seniors simply can’t afford.
President Joe Biden’s original Build Back Better plan finally would have added hearing, vision, and dental coverage to traditional Medicare. The White House ultimately dropped dental and vision care from its plan after objections from Democratic centrists, leaving hearing coverage as the only potential benefit expansion. Then, the entire Build Back Better plan was killed at the end of 2021 when Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) withdrew his support, effectively ending any real chance to expand traditional Medicare benefits while Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
As Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, observed, “Medicare is the kind of program where you’d expect the benefits to be expanded over and over again.” But other than the addition of Part D prescription drug coverage (administered by private plans) in 2003, Medicare benefits have not been expanded in the 58 years since the program was enacted.
“When Medicare was created, its architects assumed expansion… in terms of benefits,” Oberlander told Kaiser Health News. “(But) they didn’t anticipate the shift in American politics to the right.” This shift, which took root with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, emphasized tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, increased military spending, and spouted a lot of bluster about reducing deficits (hard to accomplish given the first two items on the list).
What President Biden called “human infrastructure”—services for everyday Americans struggling to thrive in a global economy amid growing wealth inequality—became a tougher political sell after 1981. The ill-fated Build Back Better plan was an earnest attempt to begin investing more resources in “human infrastructure.” Despite the demise of Build Back Better, we should not give up on expanding traditional Medicare. Real change takes time and persistence.
In fact, there has been real progress on Medicare in other ways. The Inflation Reduction Act (the reconstituted version of Build Back Better) finally allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices with Big Pharma—an historic reform that took some 20 years to enact. The Inflation Reduction Act will cap beneficiaries’ out of pocket drug costs at $2,000 per year (starting in 2025), limits seniors’ insulin costs to $35 a month, and penalizes drug-makers for raising prices above the rate of inflation.
While Congress was unable to enact a hearing benefit for traditional Medicare enrollees, legislation introduced by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) required the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to create a rule greatly expanding access to over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids, which the FDA did in 2022. These OTC products (suitable for mild-to-moderate hearing loss) can be significantly less expensive than prescription hearing aids. And while the president’s proposed dental benefit for traditional Medicare did not survive the legislative process, the Biden administration has expanded the definition of “medically necessary” dental care under Medicare Part B.
A 2021 study by Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that MA customers “still generally end up with significant out-of-pocket costs” for hearing, dental, and vision care.
Some Medicare Advantage (MA) plans do offer hearing, dental, and vision coverage—but those benefits are extremely modest and don’t always make up for the disadvantages of Medicare Advantage. Many MA insurers are under investigation for overbilling the government, denying authorizations for reasonable medical procedures, and misleading customers through celebrity ad campaigns. Meanwhile, Medicare Advantage plans restrict beneficiaries to limited networks of providers and sometimes don’t cover medical care outside of a patient’s home region.
A 2021 study by Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that MA customers “still generally end up with significant out-of-pocket costs” for hearing, dental, and vision care. “It stands to reason there would be lower out-of-pocket spending in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare, but the differences are not as large as one might expect,” Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at Kaiser Family Foundation, told Kaiser Health News.
These privatized Medicare plans, which unfortunately are growing in market share under the power of their advertising (boosted by a pro-MA bias during the Trump administration), were not part of the original vision for Medicare when President Johnson signed it into law. Traditional Medicare is the bedrock program which has provided seniors with health security since 1965. It must be preserved—and expanded—in accordance with the real needs of 21st century seniors.
On this 58th anniversary of Medicare, let’s recommit to President Johnson’s promise of the “opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” and provide “security against the economic effects of sickness.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Unveils Bill to Force Pentagon to Pass an Audit—or Return Part of Its Budget
"The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable."
Jun 22, 2023
A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation Wednesday that would require the Pentagon to return a portion of its enormous and ever-growing budget to the Treasury Department if it fails another audit in the coming fiscal year.
The Audit the Pentagon Act, an updated version of legislation first introduced in 2021, comes amid mounting concerns over rampant price gouging by military contractors and other forms of waste and abuse at an agency that's set to receive at least $842 billion for fiscal year 2024.
"The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud, and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement as he unveiled the bill alongside Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
"If we are serious about spending taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively," said Sanders, "we have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only agency in the federal government that has never passed an independent audit."
In December, the Pentagon flunked its fifth consecutive audit, unable to account for more than 60% of its $3.5 trillion in total assets.
But congressional appropriators appear largely unphased as they prepare to raise the agency's budget to record levels, with some working to increase it beyond the topline set by the recently approved debt ceiling agreement. Watchdogs have warned that the deal includes a loophole that hawkish lawmakers could use to further inflate the Pentagon budget under the guise of aiding Ukraine.
Late Wednesday, following a lengthy markup session, the House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which proposes a total military budget of $886 billion. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was the only committee member to vote no.
A huge chunk of the Pentagon's budget for next year is likely to go to profitable private contractors, which make a killing charging the federal government exorbitant sums for weapons and miscellaneous items, from toilet seats to ashtrays to coffee makers.
"Defense contractors are lining their pockets with taxpayer money while the Pentagon fails time and time again to pass an independent audit. It's a broken system," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of the new bill. "We need to compel the Department of Defense to take fraud and mismanagement seriously—and we need Congress to stop inflating our nation's near-trillion-dollar defense budget."
"Putting the wants of contractors over the needs of our communities," he added, "isn't going to make our country any safer."
"If the Department of Defense cannot conduct a clean audit, as required by law, Congress should impose tough financial consequences to hold the Pentagon accountable for mismanaging taxpayer money."
If passed, the Audit the Pentagon Act of 2023 would force every component of the Defense Department that fails an audit in fiscal year 2024 to return 1% of its budget to the Treasury Department.
A fact sheet released by Sanders' office argues that "the need for this audit is clear," pointing to a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq report estimating that "$31-60 billion had been lost to fraud and waste."
"Separately, the special inspector general for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45 billion in funding for reconstruction projects," the fact sheet notes. "A recent Ernst & Young audit of the Defense Logistics Agency found that it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction projects. CBS News recently reported that defense contractors were routinely overcharging the Pentagon—and the American taxpayer—by nearly 40-50%, and sometimes as high as 4,451%."
Further examples of the Pentagon's waste and accounting failures abound.
Last month, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the Pentagon can't account for F-35 parts worth millions of dollars.
Earlier this week, as The Washington Post reported, the Pentagon said it "uncovered a significant accounting error that led it to overvalue the amount of military equipment it sent to Ukraine since Russia's invasion last year—by $6.2 billion."
"The 'valuation errors,' as a Pentagon spokeswoman put it, will allow the Pentagon to send more weapons to Ukraine now before going to Congress to request more money," the Post noted.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee and a supporter of the Audit the Pentagon Act, said Wednesday that "taxpayers can't keep writing blank checks—they deserve long-overdue transparency from the Pentagon about wasteful defense spending."
"If the Department of Defense cannot conduct a clean audit, as required by law," said Wyden, "Congress should impose tough financial consequences to hold the Pentagon accountable for mismanaging taxpayer money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Harlan Crow Also Bankrolled GOP Lawmakers Blocking SCOTUS Ethics Reform
A new analysis shows Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have received more than $450,000 from the same GOP megadonor who has lavished Justice Clarence Thomas with undisclosed gifts.
May 09, 2023
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday sent a letter asking Harlan Crow—the billionaire GOP megadonor who has secretly showered U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts since the mid-1990s—to provide a full accounting of his financial ties to Thomas and any other judges on the high court.
It comes as "no surprise" that none of the panel's nine Republicans signed the letter, Accountable.US declared Tuesday, because they have collectively accepted nearly half a million dollars in campaign cash from Crow since the turn of the century, as a new analysis from the watchdog group shows.
Last month, one day after ProPublica published its bombshell report on Crow's under-the-table funding of near-annual luxury vacations for Thomas—the first of what would become many revelations about the two men's financial relationship—Accountable.US calculated that the current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee received $453,300 from Crow between 2001 and 2022. The group revised that figure up to $457,000 on Tuesday in light of a $3,700 donation Crow made to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) earlier this year.
The following is a list of Crow's total contributions to the nine GOP lawmakers on the panel as well as their affiliated PACs and joint fundraising committees, in descending order:
- Cornyn: $294,800
- Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa): $46,600
- Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.): $23,900
- Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas): $23,500
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.): $20,600
- Sen. Mike Lee (Utah): $19,500
- Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.): $13,400
- Sen. John Kennedy (La.): $8,300
- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.): $6,400
"There should be bipartisan outrage about the undisclosed gifts and travel billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow has given Justice Thomas," Accountable.US president Kyle Herrig said last month. "Senate Judiciary Republicans should join their Democratic colleagues to act. However, their silence so far may be because they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Crow as well."
"The highest court in the land should have the highest ethical standards," he added. "When it doesn't, Congress should exert its oversight authority."
Not only have Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with apparent conflicts of interest refused to join their Democratic colleagues in trying to establish enforceable ethics rules for the Supreme Court, but they have attempted to downplay the seriousness of the court's growing crisis of legitimacy.
Several of the panel's GOP members used last week's hearing on proposed Supreme Court ethics reforms—a hearing Chief Justice John Roberts refused to testify at despite mounting evidence of possible corruption involving Thomas and others, including Roberts himself as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch—as "an opportunity for political grandstanding and performative outrage," Accountable.US noted Tuesday.
"Cornyn claimed Congress did not have the authority to regulate the courts due to separation of powers—a claim that was disproven by an expert witness that testified at the hearing," Accountable.US pointed out. "Cruz claimed the hearing was not about judicial ethics, but instead, was an attempt to attack Justice Thomas for having rich friends."
Lee went so far as to say that "when this chapter of American history is written, those who attack Justice Thomas today will be justly dismissed as intolerant bigots."
Meanwhile, Graham, the ranking member, accused the left of trying to "delegitimize the court and cherry-pick examples to make a point." Echoing his right-wing ally, Grassley argued that recent revelations are part of a long-term effort to "cast doubt on certain judges and justices, all because the left is opposed to recent court rulings."
Kennedy, for his part, denounced "attacks on conservative justices" as "targeted" and "exaggerated" and dismissed proposed Supreme Court ethics rules as "unnecessary."
Two days after right-wing senators accused reform advocates of launching what Cruz called a "smear campaign" against Thomas, ProPublica revealed that Crow also paid tens of thousands of dollars for the jurist's grandnephew to attend a pair of elite private schools. This came after earlier exposés about Crow footing the bill for yacht trips, buying and remodeling Thomas' mother's home, and more.
Given the mounting evidence of potential connections between Crow's gifts, which Thomas sought to keep hidden, and Thomas' inclination to rule in ways favorable to his superrich benefactor, calls for the judge to resign or face impeachment are growing.
Not only does Crow have links to numerous right-wing groups involved in Supreme Court cases since Thomas was first confirmed to the bench in 1991, but his own real estate company, Crow Holdings, was directly implicated in a 2021 case before the court.
As The Lever reported last month, Thomas voted to end the Covid-era federal eviction moratorium after Crow Holdings called the lifesaving policy a threat to its "profit margins." Now, as a group of New York City landlords prepares to ask the high court to overturn local rent control laws condemned by Crow Holdings—a move that would endanger rent stabilization efforts nationwide—"there is no indication" Thomas would recuse himself, the outlet noted.
Moreover, as Common Dreams reported last week, an Americans for Tax Fairness analysis of campaign finance data shows that after Thomas provided a deciding vote in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Crow family's average annual campaign contributions soared by 862%, from $163,241 before 2010 to $1.57 million since.
This massive increase, which is partly reflected in Crow's donations to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, underscores how the 5-4 ruling that effectively legalized unlimited political spending has strengthened the wealthy's ability to shape electoral outcomes, further undermining U.S. democracy.
On Tuesday, The Lever argued that the main goal of Crow and other billionaires who provide gifts and outside money to members of the Supreme Court is not to obtain certain decisions in specific cases, given that the court's right-wing ideologues would likely rule conservatively anyway, but to prevent GOP appointees from becoming more liberal over time—a phenomenon that has occurred in the past.
Alluding to Monday's letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), The Washington Post reported that "if Crow ignores the request for information by the committee's May 22 deadline, it's unclear what Durbin's next move would be."
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is returning to Capitol Hill after an illness kept her away from the Senate since February. Feinstein's absence has left Durbin without a majority on the panel, enabling the GOP minority to impede action, but her return would open up options.
In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Durbin did not rule out the possibility of a subpoena, saying that "everything is on the table."
In addition to the implementation of robust ethics rules, progressives have called for other far-reaching changes to disempower the country's "rogue" Supreme Court justices, including expanding the court. Seats have been added seven times throughout U.S. history.
Polling data shows that public approval of the nation's chief judicial body has decreased sharply in the months since its reactionary supermajority eliminated the constitutional right to abortion care, among other harmful and unpopular decisions. According to a survey conducted last month, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults no longer have confidence in the high court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Antitrust Summer Campaign Aims to 'Beat Out Big Tech's Lobbyist Machine'
"If we can make enough noise to break through the lobbyist facade, we can get these bills to the floor in the next few weeks, and we will win."
Jun 08, 2022
A leading digital rights group on Wednesday kicked off a new campaign aimed at boosting federal legislation that would crack down on Big Tech monopolies.
"This and next week are do-or-die for the most significant antitrust reforms in a generation."
Fight for the Future's (FFF) "Antitrust Summer" campaign is betting that grassroots organizing can help win passage of S. 2992 and S. 2710, respectively the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) and the Open App Markets Act (OAMA).
"Powerful tech companies have gained way too much control over our lives. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon drown us in ads, algorithmically amplify hate and extremism, copy and kill their competitors, and limit free speech," Fight for the Future said.
"But this isn't our destiny," the group continued. "The internet is capable of so much more. Big Tech monopolists get away with harming us and our democracy simply because they can."
If passed, the AICOA, which was introduced by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and eight bipartisan colleagues, would prohibit major tech platforms from "self-preferencing," or favoring their own products and services over those of their competitors.
Meanwhile, OAMA--introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and co-sponsored by 10 senators from both parties--would empower app developers to directly reach customers without using online stores run by tech giants, prohibit major online sellers from requiring specific in-app payments, and establish privacy and security protections for consumers.
Big Tech and other corporate interests including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly oppose both measures.
Related Content
Big Tech Mounting Big-Money Fight to Defeat to Corporate Antitrust Bill
"This and next week are do-or-die for the most significant antitrust reforms in a generation," said FFF. "AICOA and OAMA are bipartisan. We believe that if they hit the floor, they will pass--overwhelmingly."
"Tech lobbyists know this, so they're pulling out all the stops to spook Senate Democrats and delay the vote," the group continued. "If we can make enough noise to break through the lobbyist facade, we can get these bills to the floor in the next few weeks, and we will win."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jackson's SCOTUS Nomination Clears Deadlocked Senate Judiciary Committee
The full upper chamber voted 53-47—with the support of three Republicans—to advance the federal judge's historic high court candidacy to a final Senate floor vote.
Apr 04, 2022
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's historic nomination to the United States Supreme Court cleared a minor hurdle Monday after the U.S. Senate overcame a deadlocked Judiciary Committee via a procedural vote in the upper chamber, where her confirmation is all but guaranteed.
"I dream of a day where Black women don't have to be overqualified, jump through hoops, and face misogynoir just to get to the jobs they already deserve."
The Judiciary Committee voted 11-11 on advancing Jackson's high court candidacy to a full Senate vote, meaning that for the first time since 1853 the upper chamber had to hold vote on discharging her nomination from the panel. The full Senate subsequently voted 53-47 to discharge the nomination.
Three Republican senators who have declared their support for Jackson's nomination--Susan Collins of Maine, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney of Utah--joined all 50 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus in voting to discharge the federal judge's nomination from the Judiciary Committee.
The Washington Post reports a final vote on Jackson's confirmation is expected to occur on the Senate floor Thursday or Friday.
Summer Lee, a democratic socialist member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives running for Congress, tweeted that "despite the GOP's efforts, Ketanji Brown Jackson will now be considered for the SCOTUS by the full Senate."
"I dream of a day where Black women don't have to be overqualified, jump through hoops, and face misogynoir just to get to the jobs they already deserve," she added.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement following the split committee vote that "it is obvious listening to Republicans that their objections are entirely unserious. Many who label Judge Jackson as radical and far-left today conveniently ignore that she received bipartisan support not once, not twice, but three times in this chamber, including by voice vote."
"They also fail to mention that Judge Jackson commands strong support from across the political spectrum," Schumer continued, "from conservative judges, to the nation's largest police unions, to a long list of former colleagues who say she is nothing short of the best of the best."
"Republicans in committee have ignored, in other words, the plain facts of Judge Jackson's record and that is deeply disappointing," he added. "Judge Jackson is a brilliant and a historic nominee--and her elevation as the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court should bring the Senate together."
Mini Timmaraju, president of the reproductive rights advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement that "it's insulting that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sought to put up another hurdle to impede the confirmation of the first Black woman to the court by refusing to vote to advance her nomination out of committee today."
"However, after the full Senate's... vote to discharge Judge Jackson's nomination from the committee, we look forward to being one step closer to having a justice on the court that we can count on to uphold equal justice for all."
Last week, more than 50 civil society groups joined the chorus of Democratic condemnation of what they called Republican senators' "baseless and harmful attacks" on Jackson's record as a judge and a public defender during her Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings.
Related Content
50+ Groups Decry GOP Senators' 'Insidious' Attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dan Goldberg, legal director at Alliance for Justice Action, asked, "How does any senator go back to their constituents and explain why they voted against her?"
"People definitely are going to remember who was on the right side and who played petty partisan politics with this historic nomination," he told The Daily Beast.
At a March 25 Marengo, Iowa town hall for Sen. Chuck Grassley--the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee--one voter said the GOP members "just beat [Jackson] up really badly" in an "appalling" way "so they could get TV time."
"I'm not going to dispute what you said, because I think you described it accurately," Grassley replied.
Daily Beast politics reporter Eleanor Clift mused that "we probably won't remember the names of the Republicans who performatively voted against the eminently qualified Judge Jackson's confirmation."
"But 30 years from now," she added, "we will be talking about the first Black woman on the court, her record, her rulings, and how she opened the door for others to follow."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy