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
federal spending
DOGE Wasted Tens of Billions While Chainsawing the Government in the Name of 'Efficiency': Senate Report
A new report found that in just six months, Elon Musk's cost-cutting agency wasted more than $21 billion. Other estimates have found that the cuts will cost more than they save in the long run.
Jul 31, 2025
The Department of Government Efficiency wasn't so efficient after all. In fact, it was extraordinarily wasteful, according to a Thursday report by the U.S. Senate's investigations subcommittee.
When Elon Musk spent the early part of this year ransacking the federal government, the billionaire promised that his mass layoffs of federal employees, his choking off of critical foreign aid, and his gutting of consumer watchdogs all served a greater purpose: saving the government—and by extension, the American people—money by rooting out waste.
Musk is already known to have wildly exaggerated the amount that his initiative was saving the public. Government spending in 2025 has been higher than previous years despite Musk's dramatic cuts.
Meanwhile, some analyses after the fact have estimated that the initiatives might actually cost taxpayers money in the long run by slashing funds for tax collection and other forms of spending that increase economic activity.
(Graphic: The Brookings Institute, Tracking Federal Expenditures in Real Time)
The staff report released by the office of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.)—the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI)—only focuses on waste by DOGE that can be quantified in the here-and-now. It finds that in just six months of operation, DOGE wasted more than $21 billion.
This comes at "the very same time," Blumenthal said, that "the Trump administration is cutting healthcare, nutrition assistance, and emergency services in the name of 'efficiency' and 'savings,'" via the recently passed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which itself is projected to add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.
Blumenthal said his investigation shows that "DOGE was clearly never about efficiency or saving the American taxpayer money."
By far the largest source of waste it identifies comes from Musk's mass layoffs of nearly 200,000 federal employees. In January, he announced the "Deferred Resignation Program" (DRP), which he described as the "fork in the road."
In order to quickly thin the ranks of government, Musk offered federal employees the opportunity to retire early with their benefits and pay through September 30—a deal that around 200,000 took. The Senate report calculates that the government has spent $14.8 billion to pay these employees not to work for eight months.
Roughly another 100,000 employees were also involuntarily fired from their jobs, and had to receive severance pay that amounts to an additional $6.1 billion.
DOGE's funding freezes also resulted in massive waste: freezes on loans for energy utility projects meant that the government lost out on $263 million worth of interest payments and fees. Meanwhile, $110 million worth of food and medicine was left to spoil in warehouses due to the shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
While many of these costs are temporary, other studies looking at the long-term effects of DOGE have found that many of the programs it cut also brought in vastly more revenue than they cost to run.
For instance, according to Yale's Budget Lab, DOGE's firing of thousands of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees could cost $395 billion in lost revenues over the next decade, and potentially as much as $2.4 trillion if the decrease in enforcement leads to more tax-dodging.
Musk also virtually eliminated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which has returned over $26 billion to American consumers since its creation in 2011 while costing a fraction of that amount to run.
Cuts to public health research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) may also lead to significant costs in the long run. An April study by the University of Maryland found that it could cost the U.S. 68,000 jobs and $16 billion in revenue annually.
Even the $125 million cut from USAID—which the White House has claimed results in "no return for the American people"—is projected to result in nearly $29 billion lost each year by U.S.-based organizations.
Meanwhile, the human costs to these cuts, especially to USAID, have been catastrophic, with hundreds of thousands already dead from preventable diseases in a matter of months, and potentially as many as 14 million by the end of the decade.
As economics writer Maia Mindel summarized in a post on X: "Okay, yeah, so DOGE was illegal and didn't cancel any big-ticket items and also it didn't increase government efficiency and it lied about all its accomplishments and also none of its staff were even remotely qualified. But at least a million Africans died. Take that, libs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk's Legacy Is Cruelty and Death
Of all the actions Musk and President Trump set in motion, nothing will hurt more people around the world than their dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Jun 07, 2025
Elon Musk is leaving the White House — and leaving a trail of destruction in his wake. But of all the actions Musk and President Trump set in motion, nothing will hurt more people around the world than their dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
By making disease-stemming drugs, clean water, and food available to millions, USAID has probably saved more lives worldwide than any entity in history.
Since 2000, USAID’s programs have prevented the deaths of 58 million people from tuberculosis, 25 million from HIV/AIDS, and over 11 million from malaria. It’s given 70 million people access to safe drinking water and, working in concert with global vaccine initiatives, helped to nearly eradicate polio.
As the main funder of global health interventions, USAID served as a bulwark against diseases that don’t halt at national borders. Its programs identified emerging epidemics and minimized the spread of drug-resistant diseases that threaten Americans as well.
Although it’s commonly assumed to be much higher, foreign aid is just 1 percent of federal spending, so cutting it won’t begin to balance the budget. So instead Trump and Musk attacked USAID by slandering it, calling it a “criminal agency” (Musk) that’s “run by a bunch of radical lunatics” (Trump).
This, of course, was a lie. USAID was known for having rigorous oversight, with 275 investigators and auditors in its watchdog office.
Most USAID funding in low-income countries targets disease prevention, economic growth, and disaster relief. But DOGE and Trump made staggering false claims, like Trump’s that USAID was sending “$50 million to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas.”
As a result, USAID was the first casualty in the Trump administration’s struggle to make the federal government subservient not to the Constitution but to one man. And Musk — the world’s richest man, whose income last year exceeded USAID’s entire budget — and his fellow billionaire President Trump withdrew medicines and food from millions of the world’s most vulnerable people. Afterward, Musk gleefully announced that they’d fed “USAID into the wood chipper.”
I’ve followed USAID since seeing its economic and agricultural programs in the African Sahel in the 1980s, and I’ve spent 40 years heading nonprofits working to provide clean drinking water internationally.
No organization I’ve led has received USAID funding, but over the years I’ve known scores of USAID staff who were hard working and conscientious about spending U.S. tax dollars. Trump owes an apology to USAID’s employees, now indiscriminately fired or coerced into early retirement.
Every federal agency can stand being streamlined. But what happened to USAID wasn’t reform — it was destruction. “They didn’t know what they were doing or care to find out, but I came to realize that cruelty is their purpose,” one senator told me in April. “Cruelty is how they think they demonstrate power.”
It’s fair to say American voters didn’t ask for this. USAID went unmentioned during the 2024 presidential campaign — and bipartisan majorities continue to say they oppose gutting the agency.
American entities which partnered with USAID — including corporations, faith-based organizations, foundations, universities, and civic groups like Rotary International — will continue to raise their own private funds. But by themselves they can’t replace USAID’s leadership abroad.
Now that Trump and Musk have eviscerated the agency, millions will suffer. The Center for Global Development estimates that U.S. foreign assistance has been saving 3 million lives annually. The journal Nature calculates that the loss of U.S. global health funding alone could result in 25 million additional deaths over the next 15 years.
For Americans — including Trump voters — feeling queasy over what’s been carried out in their name, it’s not too late to convey to Congress your support for life-saving foreign assistance.
Regardless of how they voted, Americans should be proud of how their foreign aid has reduced worldwide poverty, sickness, hunger, and thirst — all for 1 percent of the federal budget. The future cost to the United States, if it abandons its leadership in global health and development, will prove incalculable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defenders of Public Media Vow Fight Against Trump Assault on 'Cherished' NPR and PBS
"NPR and PBS aren't perfect. But they, and more importantly the hundreds of public stations across the country, are vital to a healthy democracy," wrote on journalist.
Apr 15, 2025
A leader of the advocacy group Free Press Action Fund, the 501(c)(4) arm of Free Press, on Monday denounced a plan by the Trump administration to reportedly ask Congress to take back more than $1 billion in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the congressionally funded and created company that supports public media in the United States.
The request to yank CPB funding, which would impact the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and their local member stations across the country, will be part of a broader package to rescind already approved funds and is also expected to impact funding for the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, according to Politico, which cited an anonymous White House official.
Congress had already approved $535 million in federal spending for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. If Congress agrees to the White House's request, the decrease in funding will tally about two years worth of CPB funding, nearly all of which goes to public broadcasters such as NPR and PBS, according to The New York Times.
The Trump administration plans to submit a rescission request in the coming weeks, according to the Times, which anonymously quoted two people briefed on the plan. According to Politico, to approve the request, the ask would need to clear the House and the Senate, which are both Republican-controlled, by only a simple majority vote.
Free Press Action co-CEO Jessica J. González, reacted to the news in a statement Monday: "The Trump White House may not like public media—and that's no surprise given the president's frequent attacks on any journalism that holds his administration and its cabal of billionaires accountable. But Trump's views are out of step with those of the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly support federal funding for public media."
According to a Pew Research Center survey from March, Americans are more likely to support rather than oppose continued federal funding for NPR and PBS. Twenty-four percent of U.S. adults say Congress should remove government funding from NPR and PBS, 43% say NPR and PBS should continue receiving federal funding, and 33% say they are unsure.
"President Trump and his loyalists want to take another cherished public service away from the American people," González said. "We will ensure that members of Congress will hear a similar outcry in the coming days and weeks, and encourage people to, in-person, tell their elected representatives and senators to support public broadcasting as they return home to face constituents over spring recess."
According to the Times, PBS gets about 15% of its budget from federal funding. NPR has said only 1% of its funding comes from federal sources, but its individual member stations would be more heavily impacted by a reduction in CPB funding.
PBS and NPR have been in the Trump administration's crosshairs for months. In late January, the Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr launched an investigation into NPR and PBS. In March, leaders from NPR and PBS were summoned to testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee's Delivering on Government Efficiency subcommittee. Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who chairs that subcommittee, concluded the hearing by saying that Republicans on the committee will call for the "complete and total defund and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."
On Monday, the Trump White House published an article arguing that taxpayers have been subsidizing NPR and PBS even though the they have been spreading "radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" The release included examples of the alleged propaganda.
Former "Here and Now" co-host Jeremy Hobson reacted with dismay on Monday to the news that Trump wants to yank funding for the CPB.
"As someone who has worked in public broadcasting since I was a kid, and has always tried to be factual and fair, this makes me sad. NPR and PBS aren't perfect. But they, and more importantly the hundreds of public stations across the country, are vital to a healthy democracy," he wrote on X.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Warns Musk's Call for $700 Billion in Cuts Is a 'Prelude' to Social Security Privatization
"Why do you lie so much about Social Security? To get people to lose faith in the system, and then you can give it over to Wall Street," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Mar 11, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders warned late Monday that billionaire Elon Musk's new call for up to $700 billion in cuts to mandatory federal spending is an alarming step in the direction of Social Security privatization, a longstanding—and deeply unpopular—goal of right-wing politicians and corporate-funded think tanks.
Musk, who is spearheading a large-scale assault on federal agencies and workers, told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow on Monday that "waste and fraud" in "entitlement spending"—a category that includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—is "the big one to eliminate," estimating that up to $700 billion could be cut from such programs.
It's not clear where Musk, who has lied repeatedly about Social Security in recent weeks, got the $700 billion figure. As Rolling Stone's Andrew Perez noted, "There is no expert on the planet who thinks there is $700 billion worth of annual fraud in America's safety net programs."
"Musk at one point in the interview cited a Government Accountability Office report which estimated that the government may lose between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, but that report covered the whole of the federal government—not just those programs," Perez wrote.
A 2024 report from the Social Security Administration's inspector general found that of the $8.6 trillion in Social Security benefits paid out between 2015 and 2022, roughly $71.8 billion was dispensed improperly—0.84% of the total.
"I think this is a prelude not only to cutting benefits, but to privatizing Social Security itself. I think that's in the back of their mind."
Musk also baselessly claimed that mandatory federal spending on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is a "mechanism by which the Democrats attract and retain illegal immigrants, by essentially paying them to come here and then turning them into voters." (In reality, undocumented immigrants pay taxes that help finance Social Security and Medicare but cannot receive benefits from the programs.)
Sanders (I-Vt.) couldn't hide his disgust when he was asked during a CNN appearance to respond to Musk's remarks.
"Well, he has called Social Security a Ponzi scheme. They have already laid off 2,500 employees of the Social Security Administration," said Sanders. "If you ask me, I think this is a prelude not only to cutting benefits, but to privatizing Social Security itself. I think that's in the back of their mind."
"Why do you lie so much about Social Security? Why do you make it look like it's a broken, dysfunctional system?" Sanders asked. "The reason is to get people to lose faith in the system, and then you can give it over to Wall Street. That's my view."
Musk's latest attack on Social Security, a remarkably efficient program that has never missed a payment, came as his Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has effectively taken over the Social Security Administration (SSA) and is pushing for massive cuts to the agency's staff and budget based on egregious lies.
"Appearing to misread a chart, for example, Musk said on social media in February that DOGE had identified payments to 'tens of millions' of deceased Americans—an incorrect assertion repeated by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt," The Washington Post reported last week.
Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees—a union engaged in a legal fight against the Trump administration's purge of the federal workforce—wrote Monday that Musk's latest comments show that he "doesn't just want to cut the SSA workforce."
"He wants to eliminate Social Security entirely," Kelley added.
Joel Payne, chief communications officer at MoveOn Civic Action, said in a statement Tuesday that "Elon Musk and the Trump-led Republican Party are promising exactly what they have been trying to do for years: gut Social Security."
"Republicans want to illegally fire tens of thousands of workers responsible for making sure American seniors get their Social Security and then let Musk take his chainsaw to our benefits," said Payne. "We won't let them do it. Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Republicans need to keep their hands off our Social Security."
The progressive advocacy group Social Security Works sounded a similarly defiant note.
"Elon Musk is a conman and a criminal, born with an emerald mine instead of a moral compass," the group wrote on social media. "Of course he wants to destroy Social Security, because he can't get his tiny greedy fingers on it any other way. HELL NO!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
How the GOP Spending Bill Would 'Hand a Blank Check to Elon Musk'
One top Democrat called the seven-month continuing resolution a "power grab" that "further allows unchecked billionaire Elon Musk and President Trump to steal from the American people."
Mar 10, 2025
House Republicans this week are aiming to pass a seven-month government funding bill that Democrats said would effectively preempt any congressional effort to rein in billionaire Elon Musk as he works in concert with President Donald Trump to eviscerate federal agencies and fire government employees en masse.
The continuing resolution (CR), which would avert a looming shutdown and keep the government funded through September, calls for increasing military spending while cutting or declining to fund key programs involving rental assistance, public health, and other critical areas.
Politico reported that the bill would boost military spending by roughly $6 billion and slash non-military funding by $13 billion.
"The bill, for instance, does not renew $40 million in fiscal 2024 funding for more than 70 programs that help children and families," the outlet noted. "Most had been requested by Democratic senators, but not all: Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith previously secured $250,000 for a group that works to prevent child abuse in her home state of Mississippi and GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski requested more than $5 million to help fund homeless shelters and prevent child abuse in Alaska."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that the legislation "is a power grab for the White House and further allows unchecked billionaire Elon Musk and President Trump to steal from the American people."
DeLauro continued:
By essentially closing the book on negotiations for full-year funding bills that help the middle class and protect our national security, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have handed their power to an unelected billionaire. Elon Musk and President Trump are stealing from the middle class, seniors, veterans, working people, small businesses, and farms to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations. They have made it harder for Americans to get their Social Security benefits; shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has saved American families $21 billion; fired 6,000 veterans and reportedly plan to make it harder for veterans to access benefits by firing an additional 80,000 VA employees; laid off hundreds of workers who build and maintain critical nuclear weapons; and shut down medical research labs. House Republicans' response: hand a blank check to Elon Musk.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, echoed DeLauro's criticism of the Republican bill, calling it a "slush fund continuing resolution that would give Donald Trump and Elon Musk more power over federal spending—and more power to pick winners and losers, which threatens families in blue and red states alike."
"Instead of turning the keys over to the Trump administration with this bill," said Murray, "Congress should immediately pass a short-term CR to prevent a shutdown and finish work on bipartisan funding bills that invest in families, keep America safe, and ensure our constituents have a say in how federal funding is spent."
In a fact sheet released over the weekend, Murray's office noted that full-year government funding bills typically provide "scores of specific funding directives for key programs and priorities" that constrain the executive branch.
But under the GOP continuing resolution, the fact sheet observes, "hundreds of those congressional directives fall away," giving the Trump administration broad discretion to "reshape spending priorities, eliminate longstanding programs, pick winners and losers, and more."
"Under this CR, the Trump administration could—for example—decide not to spend funding previously allocated for combatting fentanyl, the SUPPORT Act, and other substance abuse and mental health programs, or specific NIH priorities like Alzheimer's disease and vaccine research—and instead steer funding to other priorities of its choosing," the document states. "It could also pick and choose which Military Construction, Army Corps, or transit improvement and expansion projects to fund without direction from Congress."
A similar fact sheet released by DeLauro warns that the CR "provides a blank check to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the amount of $4 billion, enabling Elon Musk to direct contracts to Starlink and SpaceX (companies owned by Musk) at a time when unvetted and unchecked SpaceX employees have burrowed in the FAA (the same Federal agency that regulates SpaceX), with no requirement for public transparency, fair competition, or congressional approval."
"This continuing resolution is a blank check for Elon Musk and creates more flexibility for him to steal from the middle class, seniors, veterans, working people, small businesses, and farmers to pay for tax breaks for billionaires," said DeLauro.
The Republican bill is expected to get a House vote as soon as Tuesday evening. In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump praised the CR as "very good" and demanded lockstep unity from his party, which has willfully ceded the power of the purse in the opening weeks of the president's second White House term.
Trump's call for "no dissent" from Republicans stems from the party's narrow majorities in the House and Senate. In the latter chamber, the bill will need at least seven Democratic votes to pass.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's a Coup': Musk's DOGE Granted Access to Treasury System That Pays Out Social Security
"I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems," Sen. Ron Wyden said.
Feb 02, 2025
Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency—or DOGE—have been granted access to a sensitive Treasury Department payment system that contains the personal information of every American who receives tax refunds, Medicare, Social Security, and other payments from the government.
Newly approved Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave Musk surrogates access to the system late on Friday, five people familiar with the situation told The New York Times. Bessent's decision came the same day as news that David Lebryk, a career Treasury official who was acting secretary before Bessent's confirmation, would step down after arguing with DOGE members over access to the system run by the Bureau of Fiscal Service that pays out over $6 trillion a year.
"Sources tell my office that Treasury Secretary Bessent has granted DOGE *full* access to this system," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote on social media on Saturday. "Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk's own companies. All of it."
"Americans don't want an unelected and unaccountable billionaire dictating what working families can and cannot afford."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich also responded with shock to the news: "An unelected billionaire, with no actual congressional authority or governmentt experience, now has access to Treasury payment systems and sensitive information about millions of Americans who receive Social Security checks, tax refunds, and other payments. What could go wrong?"
The news heightens fears that Musk and the Trump administration are attempting to gain authoritarian control over the federal government by ousting or sidelining career civil servants and undermining Congress, which has the constitutional authority to decide how the government should spend its money.
DOGE gained access to the Treasury payment system on the same day that an official at the Office of Personnel Management said that Musk allies had locked career civil servants out of a computer system containing the personal information of federal employees. The news also capped a week in which the Trump administration attempted to freeze all federal grants and loans, a move that has been temporarily blocked by two judges.
Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter demanding answers from Bessent on Friday when reports first emerged that Musk's team had tried to gain access to the system.
"To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy," Wyden wrote. "I am deeply concerned that following the federal grant and loan freeze earlier this week, these officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs. I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems."
Other Democratic lawmakers also voiced concerns on social media about the news.
"Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, is rooting around in Social Security and Medicare payment systems. He's reaching his hands into our pockets and firing anyone who tries to stop him. This reeks of corruption—it must stop," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Wash.) wrote.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called the news "alarming' and said that Congress must investigate.
People familiar with the situation told The New York Times that no payments had yet been blocked and that the stated mission of the DOGE team was to review payments, not to stop them. Musk suggested in a social media post on Friday that he was looking for inapropriate expenditures, but also that blocking funds might be appropriate.
"The DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups," he wrote on social media on Friday. "They literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not even once."
Former Treasury officials told the Times that funds are dispersed by a comparatively small staff who rely on the agencies that earmark the funds to vet them. Don Hammond, who ran the system at the turn of the millennium, also told The Wall Street Journal that, while there were certain automatic safeguards in place, it was not the role of Treasury to approve or reject specific payments.
"Legally, if you want to stop a payment from taking place, the place to do that is at the agency level," Hammond said.
Responding to the article on social media on Sunday, Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens wrote: "The Treasury system makes the payments (cuts checks). It doesn't decide who to pay or how much. A little like an employer using a payroll processor. Musk has infiltrated the system to stop payments. It's a coup."
In an op-ed published by MSNBC on Saturday, Owens went into greater detail about her concerns, outlining three reasons why Musk might want access to the Treasury payment system.
- He could use it to stop payments to certain programs in order to work around the courts' block on the administration's spending freeze.
- He could access the list of blacklisted federal contractors in order to boost his own or his friend's companies and harm his competitors. (One of the DOGE allies granted access to the payment system, Tom Krause, is also a Big Tech CEO who leads Cloud Software Group, according to The New York Times.)
- He could use it to reduce Social Security or Medicare payments as part of DOGE's goal of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.
Owens noted hat Musk wasn't "chasing these cuts for their own sake. He's helping congressional Republicans attempt to pay for a new round of tax breaks for corporations and the ultrawealthy—including Musk himself."
"It's nice to believe in a fantasy in which Musk and DOGE work alongside civil servants to improve technology and services for Americans and save a few bucks along the way. But all evidence points to the contrary," Owens continued. "The richest man in the world, whom no one elected to any government position, is seeking unprecedented access to confidential information, including information pertaining to his own business interests, and seems hell-bent on cutting off as much funding as possible for the programs that matter to the rest of us."
Owens pointed to a recent poll finding that only around one-third of Americans approve of DOGE, and that 52% disapprove of Musk.
"Americans don't want an unelected and unaccountable billionaire dictating what working families can and cannot afford," she concluded. "If Musk is going to continue running the government like one of his failed businesses, perhaps someone should force his 'resignation' too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alarm Raised Over Wall Street Titan at SSA
"Nothing in Mr. Bisignano's career suggests that he understands the unique needs of older and disabled Americans," said the Alliance for Retired Americans' leader.
Dec 06, 2024
Critics of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the Social Security Administration, Frank Bisignano, warned this week that the Wall Street veteran may not be the best choice to run an agency that provides one of America's most important social safety nets.
"President-elect Trump has nominated financial software CEO and GOP donor Frank Bisignano to head the agency that administers Social Security benefits for some 70 million Americans. If confirmed, Bisignano will be accountable—not to corporate boards or stockholders—but to the American people, who depend on their Social Security benefits and pay for them over a lifetime of work," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, in a Thursday statement.
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a statement that "nothing in Mr. Bisignano's career suggests that he understands the unique needs of older and disabled Americans."
"We are also concerned that his decades on Wall Street will leave SSA with a cheerleader for risky schemes like allowing investment firms and crypto corporations to gamble with the trust funds and benefits that Americans paid for and earned through a lifetime of work," Fiesta added.
Bisignano was previously an executive at Shearson Lehman Brothers and also held positions at JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. During his tenure at the firm First Data Corp., he was listed as the second-highest paid CEO in the U.S. in 2017, per The New York Times. Bisignano is currently the president and CEO of Fiserv (which merged with First Data Corp. in 2019), a payments and financial technology firm.
"Frank is a business leader, with a tremendous track record of transforming large corporations. He will be responsible to deliver on the Agency's commitment to the American People for generations to come!" Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this week.
If confirmed, Bisignano would oversee an agency with more than 1,200 field offices and almost 60,000 employees, according to the Times, and his nomination comes at a time when money in Social Security's trust funds, a reserve that is used to make sure recipients get their full payment, could be entirely depleted by 2035.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled a willingness to target Social Security and other mandatory programs after meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the duo that President-elect Donald Trump has tapped to lead a new commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.
In reaction to Bisignano's nomination, Wisconsin state Sen. Chris Larson (D-7) quipped on X: "Why leave a $28 million/yr gig to work in government? My prediction: to cut Social Security."
Keep ReadingShow Less
So You Wanna Reduce the Debt? Tax the Wealthy Like We Used To
Here's what most people don't know: The wealthy used to pay higher taxes to the government. Now the government pays the wealthy interest on their loans to finance a swelling debt that’s been caused largely by lower taxes on the wealthy.
Jan 31, 2023
The dire warnings of fiscal hawks are once again darkening the skies of official Washington, demanding that the $31 trillion federal debt be reduced and government spending curtailed (thereby giving cover to Republican efforts to hold America hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling).
It’s always the same when Republicans take over a chamber of Congress or the presidency. Horrors! The debt is out of control! Federal spending must be cut!
Not only is the story false, but it leaves out the bigger and more important story behind today’s federal debt: the switch by America’s wealthy over the last half century from paying taxes to the government to lending the government money.
This back story needs to be told if Americans are to understand what’s really happened and what needs to be done about it. Republicans won’t tell it, so Democrats (starting with Joe Biden) must.
A half century ago, American’s wealthy financed the federal government mainly through their tax payments. Tax rates on the wealthy were high: Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, they were over 90 percent. Even after all tax deductions, the wealthy typically paid half of their incomes in taxes.
Since then — courtesy of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump — the effective tax rate on wealthy Americans has plummeted. Even as they’ve accumulated unprecedented wealth, today’s rich are now paying a lower tax rate than middle-class Americans. (The 400 richest American families paid a tax rate of just 3.4 percent between 2014 and 2018, while the rest of us paid an average tax rate of 13.3 percent.)
One of the biggest reasons the federal debt has exploded is that tax cuts on wealthier Americans have reduced government revenue.
Meanwhile, America’s wealthy are financing America’s exploding debt by lending the federal government money, for which the government pays them interest.
As the federal debt continues to mount, those interest payments are ballooning — hitting a record $475 billion in the last fiscal next year (which ran through September). The Congressional Budget Office predicts that interest payments on the federal debt will reach 3.3 percent of the GDP by 2032 and 7.2 percent by 2052.
The biggest recipients of these interest payments are not foreigners but wealthy Americans who park their savings in treasury bonds held by mutual funds, hedge funds, pension funds, banks, insurance companies, personal trusts, and estates.
Hence the half-century switch: The wealthy used to pay higher taxes to the government. Now the government pays the wealthy interest on their loans to finance a swelling debt that’s been caused largely by lower taxes on the wealthy.
This means that a growing portion of your taxes are going to the wealthy in the form of interest payments, rather than paying for government services everyone needs.
So, the real problem isn’t America’s growing federal budget deficit. It’s the decline in tax revenue from America’s wealthy combined with growing interest payments to them.
Both are worsening America’s already horrific inequalities of income and wealth.
What should be done? Reduce the debt by raising taxes on the wealthy.
This back story needs to be told. Please spread the word.
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