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
ron johnson
The Ultra-Rich Have Exploited Our Tax System Long Enough—Make Them Pay!
Funny how these same apologists for our richest don’t have much sympathy for ordinary Americans who lack the “wherewithal” to pay for medical care, adequate housing, and other necessities.
Mar 30, 2025
The most gaping loophole in our tax law? The tax-free compounding of gains on investments.
This classic loophole enables the two most lucrative inequality-driving income tax avoidance strategies. The first, buy-borrow-die, allows wealthy Americans to avoid income tax entirely on even billions in investment gains.
These wealthy need only hold on to their appreciated assets until death. What if they need cash before then? They merely borrow against the appreciated assets, typically at very low interest rates.
Are rich Americans, including billionaires, truly unable to pay tax on their investment gains before they sell the assets yielding those gains? Wanna buy a bridge?
The second avoidance strategy, buy-hold for decades-sell, lets wealthy investors pay a super low effective annual tax rate on investments that appreciate at high rates over long periods of time. These investors typically experience decades of compounding gains without taxation.
The effective tax rates involved in this second strategy won’t reach buy-borrow-die’s zero tax, but may in some cases get as low as a 4% effective annual rate. A 4% effective annual tax rate would have an investment with a pre-tax growth rate of 20% per year enjoying an after-tax growth rate of 19.2% per year.
Congressional apologists for the ultra-rich on both sides of the aisle regularly claim that their wealthy patrons should be entitled to endless tax-free compounding of investment gains. Without this tax-free compounding, the argument goes, our richest wouldn’t have the “wherewithal to pay” tax on their investment gains before their assets get sold. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) invoked this tired canard at a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing.
Funny how these same apologists for our richest don’t have much sympathy for ordinary Americans who lack the “wherewithal” to pay for medical care, adequate housing, and other necessities. Average wage earners, under current law, can’t even wait until year-end to pay Uncle Sam their taxes. Those taxes come out of each paycheck, wherewithal to pay or not.
Are rich Americans, including billionaires, truly unable to pay tax on their investment gains before they sell the assets yielding those gains? Wanna buy a bridge?
Let’s start with the easiest case: a publicly traded investment that can be sold in smaller units, an investment in stocks, for instance. Say Rich, a wealthy investor, buys 1 million shares of Nvidia at $100 per share, and those shares, by year’s end, increase in value to $120 per share.
Our investor Rich now has a $20 million gain. If that annual gain faced a 25% tax rate, Rich would have a $5 million tax liability. To raise the cash to pay that tax, Rich could sell off 41,667 of his shares, leaving him with 958,333 shares, now worth just under $115 million.
That doesn’t seem very painful.
Now, let’s say Rich didn’t want to sell any shares. He could instead just borrow $5 million against the shares to pay the tax.
Or what if Rich had bought a parcel of land instead of Nvidia shares and, for whatever reason, having him borrow to pay tax on his annual investment gains didn’t turn out to be feasible?
Still no problem for Rich. For gains on illiquid assets, Rich could defer the payment of tax until he sold the assets, but the tax could be computed as if it accrued annually. How might this work? Say, for example, that Rich’s $100 million parcel of land grew at an annual rate of 10% for 20 years, at which point he sold it at its appreciated value of $672,749,995.
Had Rich paid tax at 25% on his gain each year, his rate of return would have been 7.5% per year, and after 20 years his investment would be worth $424,785,110.
The $247,964,885 difference between his sale price and the value of his investment with its actual rate of return reduced by the tax paid would be his tax liability upon sale. Payment of that amount would leave Rich with the same sum, $424,785,110, had he been able to sell a small share of his parcel each year, to pay the tax on his investment gain.
Put another way, Rich would be left with the same amount using this tax computation as he would if he sold his parcel each year, paid tax on the gain, and reinvested the remaining proceeds in another parcel.
And if Rich died before selling his parcel? His income tax could be determined for the year of his death in the same fashion as if he’d sold the parcel for its fair market value at the time of his death. Or, in the alternative, his inheritors could step into his shoes and pay the same tax when they sold the parcel as Rich would have had he survived and sold it at that time.
The bottom line: If we closed the tax-free compounding of investment gains loophole, some situations might exist where the immediate payment of tax on investment gains could pose a problem. But we can address those situations by deferring payment of the tax until investments get sold and accounting for the tax-free compounding in the determination of the tax.
These problematic situations, in other words, don’t justify leaving a gaping loophole in place.
So the obstacle to shutting down buy-borrow-die and buy-hold for decades-sell has absolutely nothing to do with ultra-rich investors lacking the wherewithal to pay taxes. That obstacle remains the politicians in Washington, D.C. who lack the wherewithal to summon the courage to make our rich pay the taxes they owe our nation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wisconsin AG Sues to Block Musk's Multimillion Dollar Election Eve Voter Bribe
Attorney General Josh Kaul accused the world's richest person and top Trump adviser of "a blatant attempt to violate" Wisconsin's election bribery law.
Mar 28, 2025
Democratic Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to stop Elon Musk—the world's richest person and a senior adviser to President Donald Trump—from handing out $1 million checks to voters this weekend in an apparent blatant violation of bribery law meant to swing next Tuesday's crucial state Supreme Court election.
"Wisconsin law forbids anyone from offering or promising to give anything of value to an elector in order to induce the elector to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting, or vote for a particular person," the lawsuit notes. "Musk's announcement of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3, 2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat. § 12.11. This must not happen."
On Thursday, Musk announced on his X social media site that he will "give a talk" at an undisclosed location in Wisconsin, and that "entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges."
"I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to two people to be spokesmen for the petition," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO and de facto head of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency wrote.
As Common Dreams reported earlier last week, Musk's super political action committee, America PAC, is offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition stating that they reject "the actions of activist judges who impose their own views" and demand "a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating."
The cash awards—which critics have decried as bribery—are part of a multimillion dollar effort by Musk and affiliated super PACs to boost Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, the Trump-backed, right-wing state Supreme Court candidate locked in a tight race with Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.
Left-leaning justices are clinging to a 4-3 advantage on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Crawford and Schimel are vying to fill the seat now occupied by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who is not running for another 10-year term. Control of the state's highest court will likely impact a wide range of issues, from abortion to labor rights to voter suppression.
Musk has openly admitted why he's spending millions of dollars on the race: It "will decide how congressional districts are drawn." That's what he said while hosting Schimel and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for a discussion on X last weekend.
"In my opinion that's the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin," Musk argued. "It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place."
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman issued a statement Friday calling Musk's planned cash giveaway a "last-minute desperate distraction."
"Wisconsinites don't want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for," Honeyman added, "and on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk's lackey Brad Schimel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rich Republicans on Key Tax Panels Poised to Gain Over $24 Million From Trump Tax Cuts
"The multimillionaire Republicans in charge of these key committees cannot properly represent average Americans' tax and spending interests," said the executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness.
Feb 27, 2025
An analysis published Thursday shows that Republicans on key committees in the House and Senate are poised to reap huge windfalls for themselves and their families if the trillions of dollars in tax breaks they've been tasked with crafting become law.
The Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) report examines GOP members of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. The group found that the average net worth of the committees' Republican members is close to $15 million.
Over two-thirds of the 26 members of the House Ways and Means Committee are millionaires, according to ATF.
"The wealthiest GOP members could give themselves a roughly $1.8 million annual income tax cut and their families a potential one-time estate tax cut of $22.8 million—a potential total of $24.6 million in tax cuts if they pass legislation to extend the Trump tax bill," ATF's analysis shows.
The number two Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, is worth nearly $250 million, making him one of the richest members of Congress.
If the tax package that Republican lawmakers are assembling is enacted, Buchanan's family stands to save $5.6 million in taxes thanks to an extension of the 2017 law's estate tax exemptions. Buchanan would personally receive $1.3 million in annual income tax breaks under an extension of the 2017 measure.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who helped secure a major tax gift for the wealthy in the 2017 law, and his family would also benefit to the tune of nearly $6 million from estate tax provisions and other giveaways.
"The multimillionaire Republicans in charge of these key committees cannot properly represent average Americans' tax and spending interests," David Kass, ATF's executive director, said in a statement Thursday. "Their prioritization of extending Trump's tax scam demonstrates their disconnect from middle and working-class constituents' needs."
"While wealthy Democrats also serve on these committees, they aren't promoting continuing the entire Trump tax legislation which primarily benefits rich individuals like them and giant corporations—legislation that would add trillions to the deficit and threaten funding for Social Security, healthcare, education, housing, and other vital public services," Kass added. "A system where millionaires vote for tax benefits favoring other wealthy elites undermines both our economy and democracy."
Under a resolution that House Republicans approved earlier this week, the House Ways and Means Committee is instructed to "submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction that increase the deficit by not more than" $4.5 trillion over the next decade—which would clear the way for an extension of the 2017 tax law that President Donald Trump signed during his first term.
The resolution also instructs the committees that oversee Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to enact more than $1 trillion in cuts to partially offset the massive cost of the tax giveaways, which would primarily benefit the rich.
According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), "the richest 1% would receive an average tax cut of more than $78,000 in 2026 alone, far outstripping tax cuts to taxpayers in any other income group."
"More than two-thirds of the benefits of these changes would go to the richest fifth of Americans, with 21% of the benefits flowing to the richest 1% alone," Steve Wamhoff, ITEP's federal policy director, wrote in a blog post on Wednesday. "Meanwhile, the middle fifth (20%) of Americans would get just 10% of the benefits and the poorest fifth of Americans would receive 1%."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ron Johnson Is Working Tirelessly to Protect the Super-Rich From Paying Their Fair Share
While purporting to be concerned about income inequality, Johnson advocates for proposals obviously intended to benefit his rich benefactors and, worse yet, himself.
Oct 11, 2024
If you were a rich Wisconsinite striving to get even richer and you had little regard for intellectual honesty or the well-being of your fellow citizens, you would agree with Sen. Ron Johnson’s remarks at last month’s Senate Finance Committee hearing.
Otherwise, you’d find the senator’s views troublesome, to say the least.
I was a witness at that hearing. Johnson asked me to agree with him that having both an income tax and an estate tax is double taxation. As politely as I could, I pointed out that the income tax and the estate tax are two different taxes. The senator’s argument is no different than saying it is double taxation if an average American, after paying tax on her wages, pays federal excise tax at the pump when she purchases gas.
Unless and until Johnson’s face replaces Roosevelt’s at Mt. Rushmore, I’ll go out on a limb and say we should stick with the tax structure Roosevelt advocated.
Johnson undoubtedly knows better. America has had both an estate tax and an income tax for over a century now. They’re two different taxes. One is an income tax; the other is an excise tax on the transfer of substantial wealth. The specific purpose of the estate tax was to limit the size of America’s largest dynastic fortunes, lest we slip into an aristocracy. The lead advocate for the estate tax, President Teddy Roosevelt, recognized the necessity for both taxes: “The really swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size,” Roosevelt observed, “acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means.” Therefore, Roosevelt, a Republican like Johnson, advocated for both a “graduated income tax on big fortunes,” and “a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.”
At the hearing, Johnson was speaking in support of keeping one of the worst loopholes in the tax code, a provision commonly known as stepped-up basis. It allows the untaxed gains on the investment assets of mega-millionaires and billionaires to escape income taxation entirely, as long as they hold those assets until death. Jeff Bezos, for example, would avoid income tax on over $100 billion of gain on his Amazon shares were he to hold those shares until his death. And if ultra-rich Americans ever need cash, they don’t need to sell highly appreciated assets. Instead, they can borrow against the assets. It’s a strategy known as buy-borrow-die.
Johnson’s true goal isn’t really protecting the ultra-rich from double taxation, though. He actually wants to protect them from any taxation. That’s what the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2023, a bill Johnson and 41 other Republican senators have sponsored, would do. If that were to become law, Mr. Bezos, or any other billionaire, could pass his billions to his inheritors free of both estate tax and income tax on all those previously untaxed gains.
Unless and until Johnson’s face replaces Roosevelt’s at Mt. Rushmore, I’ll go out on a limb and say we should stick with the tax structure Roosevelt advocated. And that requires closing the stepped-up basis loophole.
At the hearing, Johnson did not limit his shilling for the ultra-rich to the stepped-up basis issue. While purporting to be concerned about income inequality, Johnson advocated for proposals obviously intended to benefit his rich benefactors and, worse yet, himself. Were it up to him, for example, our tax law would “index out” inflationary gains. Here’s how that would work for Johnson and his fellow real estate moguls: Say Johnson purchased a property for $10 million with $2 million in cash and an $8 million loan, using the property’s rental income to make the loan payments. Now, say inflation ran at 4% for 10 years and Johnson’s property kept pace. Under his plan, he’d be treated as if he paid $14 million for the property. And if he then sold the property for its $14 million value? He’d have no income tax to pay, but after paying off the loan, he’d have a $4 million profit. Yes, $800,000 of that profit would be attributable to inflation, but the other $3.2 million would be real profit, and it would escape tax entirely if Johnson has his way.
Johnson’s efforts to “address inequality”—yes, he really presented it this way at the hearing—aren’t limited to opposing stepped-up basis reform and advocating for indexing for inflation. He also insists that he and his rich patrons not be taxed on their massive investment gains until they sell assets so they have the “wherewithal to pay.” That would allow the country’s ultra-rich to continue to benefit from the tax-free compounding of their investment gains using the buy-borrow-die strategy. When you do the math, even when the ultra-rich sell long-held investments before they die and pay tax on their gains, the effective annual rate of tax on the growth in their wealth can be less than 5%. With Johnson’s plan to “index out” inflation added to his staunch support of buy-borrow die, that effective rate would be even lower.
There’s no need to guess about whether Johnson believes he’s advocating for good tax policy or is simply carrying water for his billionaire backers (and himself). The record is clear. In 2017, Johnson pushed hard for the so-called “pass-through deduction,” which allows owners of limited liability companies and subchapter S corporations to pay a 20% lower rate of tax on their income. He even threatened to withhold his vote for former President Donald Trump’s tax package unless the pass-through deduction was increased. In 2018, according to reporting by ProPublica, the pass-through deduction generated tax deductions of over $117 million for Dick and Liz Uihlein, the owners of Uline, and over $97 million for Diane Hendricks, the owner of ABC Supply Co. In 2022, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Hendricks and the Uihleins contributed at least $22.5 million to Wisconsin Truth PAC, a Johnson-supporting super PAC which spent $24 million on ads attacking Johnson’s 2022 opponent, Mandela Barnes.
Those massive contributions were entirely rational, in a depressing way that reeks of corruption. In 2018 alone, Hendricks and the Uihleins saved just under $80 million in tax as a result of Johnson’s handiwork. His efforts to continue the pass-through deduction past its scheduled 2025 expiration date could net them about $1 billion over the next decade. That $22.5 million they spent on Johson’s 2022 senate campaign may be categorized as a campaign contribution. But when $22.5 million has the potential to enrich you to the tune of $1 billion, it smells a lot more like an investment. And a highly profitable one; the kind only billionaires experience.
With Washington filled with politicians like Ron Johnson, we need more patriotic millionaires. A lot more. To paraphrase our Vice Chair, Stephen Prince, we need more wealthy Americans to step up and say that while they like being rich, they recognize that our tax system has been rigged in their favor for far too long. And we need more politicians fighting to unrig our tax system, not rig it further. We’ll never change the mindset of Ron Johnson and his ilk. The only way to fix this mess is to elect politicians who will outvote them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Employee Ownership: A Surprisingly Bipartisan Solution to Inequality
Broad-based employee ownership is one approach to economic opportunity that has wide political support, a demonstrated record of success, and great untapped potential.
Jan 28, 2024
A recent Oxfam report found that “the combined fortunes of the world’s five richest men have more than doubled to $869 billion since 2020, while 5 billion people have been made poorer.” The report makes a number of recommendations to help address the problem of wealth insecurity, one of which is supporting employee ownership.
That may seem like a stretch in today’s polarized political climate, but, in fact, employee ownership has the support in Congress of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and just about everyone in between. In fact, over the last 46 years, employee ownership has consistently been supported by virtually all members of both parties through a variety of tax and financial incentives.
There are 14 million employees in the most common form of employee ownership in the U.S., the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). The average account value for these plans is $136,000 per employee, and much more for longer-tenured workers. ESOP-owned companies grow faster than their competition, lay people off at one-third to one-fifth the rate, and have far lower voluntary turnover.
By contrast, 50% of the private sector workforce is in no retirement plan at all, and half the households cannot put their hands on $1,000 in an emergency. While most ESOPs are in companies with 20-100 employees, the 100 largest ESOP-owned companies employ close to 700,000 people and include some of the largest companies in their fields.
It is not difficult to persuade legislators that this is a good idea, but there needs to be a real push to make people see it as an important idea.
There is a lot of conversation about income inequality, but this is only half the story. While real wages have been largely stagnant since the 1970s, returns on capital have been impressive. The Dow had only three digits in the 1970s and has five today. If more workers were owners, more families could afford to retire, to buy a home, to send their kids to college, and do all the other things only wealth can provide.
Broad-based employee ownership is one approach to economic opportunity that has wide political support, a demonstrated record of success, and great untapped potential. Employee-owned companies perform better, and their employees are much more economically secure. You would think pundits and politicians would be shouting from the rooftops about an idea that both works to improve people’s lives in meaningful ways and is politically feasible. But almost no one does.
Employee ownership can involve employees buying stock, but most broad-based employee ownership in the U.S. allows working people to become owners without their having to cough up scarce dollars to do so. ESOPs, the major form of employee ownership, are funded by the company, almost always as an additional employee benefit. Over 90% of these plans are in closely held companies, where they are usually used as a means to provide for business transition, creating an ideal scenario for the wave of retiring baby boomer business owners who want to manage a transition in a way that preserves their business legacy. Congress has granted these plans and owners selling them significant tax benefits.
It is far past time for people to start talking about this. While Congress has provided generous tax support for ESOPs, there is more that needs to be done, especially in helping make more financing available and supporting outreach efforts to educate business owners about why ESOPs can be a good idea for their companies. The Worker Ownership Readiness and Knowledge Act (the “WORK Act”), for instance, passed in 2022 and would fund state employee ownership outreach programs, but it will need funding in the next congressional budget to become effective. The Employee Equity Investment Act would provide government-backed financing for companies to use ESOPs to buy out existing owners of closely held businesses. It has bipartisan support. State programs have been enacted in a number of states, but more are needed.
It is not difficult to persuade legislators that this is a good idea, but there needs to be a real push to make people see it as an important idea. That can happen if more voices are raised to support it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Ron Johnson Argues Against Rich Paying Fair Share to Ensure Social Security's Survival
The Wisconsin Republican millionaire accused working-class Americans of "getting a lot more in return" from the key social program than rich people who pay disproportionately less into its coffers.
Jul 12, 2023
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson came under fire Wednesday after the multimillionaire Wisconsin Republican asserted during a Senate hearing that Social Security—an economic lifeline for tens of millions of Americans who paid into the system throughout their working lives—unfairly takes from wealthier people to support lower-income retirees.
Speaking during the Senate Budget Committee hearing—entitled Protecting Social Security for All: Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share—Johnson said that his Wisconsin constituents "have a basic misconception about Social Security."
Johnson—one of the wealthiest U.S. senators, according to the watchdog OpenSecrets—derided Social Security, a key New Deal program, as a "nanny state" scheme enacted because the government doesn't trust Americans to save for retirement on their own.
"Most people think, 'Well, that's my money,' and, in fact, part of it is," the senator continued. "If you're in a low-income group, you're getting a lot more in return than you invested in... If you're in the high-income, you're not getting what you paid in."
Patient advocate and cancer survivor Peter Morley tweeted Wednesday that "Sen. Ron Johnson is a LIAR and it was clear from today's hearing that he is a defender of the rich and not for the people!"
Johnson previously called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" in one of many attacks on the program upon which around 66 million Americans rely.
Further arguing during Wednesday's hearing that Social Security was not meant to be a "general welfare system," Johnson turned to Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) executive director Amy Hanauer—who testified that "our tax system raises far too little from those with the most"—to ask what he called "a very simple question."
"Out of every $1 of income that any American makes," he queried, "how much should be the maximum amount the government takes out in total?"
"I think we should think about the kind of country we want to have," Hanauer began to reply before Johnson interrupted her to demand an answer as "a percent."
"You know, we had 400 billionaires who paid less than an 8% tax rate, so more than that," she asserted. "It strikes me that in a society where the wealthiest are getting more and more of our income, they can afford to chip in more to maintain the systems that enabled them to build that wealth in the first place."
Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) followed Hanauer's response by opining that "it would make a very big difference to me in how much should be taxed on a dollar of income whether it was the first dollar of income of an individual or their billionth dollar of income."
On Tuesday, the Social Security Administration's Office of the Chief Actuary published an analysis showing how Democrats' Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act could extend the social programs' solvency for generations by increasing taxes on incomes over $400,000.
Another bill introduced earlier this year by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) would boost monthly Social Security benefits by at least $200, prolonging the program's solvency for decades by lifting the cap on the maximum income subject to Social Security payroll tax.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has announced the creation of a fiscal commission tasked with finding ways to reduce the national debt, warning last month that he was "going to make some people uncomfortable" by looking at cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaires Spent Over $1 Billion on 2022 Elections—More Than Any Year in US History
"Billionaires spending a billion dollars on a shopping spree for democracy should wake us all up to the threat posed by nearly unlimited wealth applied without limits to our elections," said the head of Americans for Tax Fairness.
May 15, 2023
Americans for Tax Fairness on Monday released the group's latest report on "the threat posed to American democracy by billionaire political spenders," revealing that last year their collective congressional campaign contributions topped $1 billion for the first time.
"That 'Billionaires' Billion' was almost three-quarters more than the tycoons' total spending on the last midterms, in 2018, and 300 times more than what billionaires spent on congressional races as recently as a dozen years ago," states the ATF report.
"The Billionaires' Billion—contributed by fewer than 500 individuals—represented about one of every nine dollars raised from all sources in the 2022 elections," the analysis continues, noting that 15 of the nation's richest households were responsible for $658 million, or nearly two-thirds, of the contributions.
"Nearly 80% of billionaire cash—$782 million—went to outside campaign groups," the document adds, and in eight key races that decided which party controlled the Senate, "billionaire donations supported Republican candidates over Democratic ones by almost a 5-1 margin."
Democrats initially secured a slim majority in the Senate—including the two Independents who caucus with the party—after Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) won a runoff against GOP challenger Herschel Walker in December, but that victory was quickly tempered when Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona became an Independent just days later.
Although Republicans lost five of the eight key Senate races, the ATF report explains, not only did billionaire spending encourage candidates to focus on positions favored by their wealthy benefactors, but also, in North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin—won by GOP Sens. Ted Budd, J.D. Vance, and Ron Johnson, respectively—the superrich overwhelmingly backed the party and "Republican billionaires outspent the much smaller pool of Democratic billionaires by at least 9-to-1 in each race."
The GOP did seize control of the House of Representatives in last year's midterms—enabling their efforts to quash recent legislative victories and priorities of congressional Democrats and President Joe Biden, including the ongoing battle over whether to raise the debt ceiling to avert the first-ever U.S. default, which economists warn would be catastrophic for the global economy.
The current makeup of Congress makes it exceptionally difficult to pass any legislation—including campaign finance reforms that critics of billionaires' influence on the American political system have increasingly demanded since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which loosened restrictions on political spending.
"Billionaires spending a billion dollars on a shopping spree for democracy should wake us all up to the threat posed by nearly unlimited wealth applied without limits to our elections," ATF executive director David Kass declared Monday. "There are well-known solutions to the problem, including overturning Citizens United and effectively taxing the biggest sources of billionaire wealth, which now often go lightly taxed if at all."
"Those tax reforms include taxing wealth like work by equalizing the top tax rate on investment and wage income, and closing the stepped-up basis loophole that allows investment gains to go untaxed forever," Kass added. "All that's needed is for Congress to heed the call of the American people to unrig a corrupt system."
In March, Biden unveiled a budget blueprint—which included various tax reforms—that then-ATF executive director Frank Clemente said "plainly shows whose side he's on: working families struggling with the high cost of healthcare, childcare, housing and more—not the wealthy elite and their big corporations rolling in dough and dodging their fair share of taxes."
However, the GOP continues to make clear that the party only plans to serve the rich with tax breaks, not force them to pay more. Citing three unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported Monday that "the White House recently gave Republican congressional leadership a list of proposals to reduce the deficit by closing tax loopholes during the ongoing negotiations over the federal budget and the debt ceiling. But Republican negotiators rejected every item."
"On a phone call last week, senior White House officials floated about a dozen tax plans to reduce the deficit as part of a broader budget agreement with House Republicans, including a measure aimed at cryptocurrency transactions and another for large real estate investors," according to the Post. "They were all swiftly rejected by the GOP aides on the call."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Exposed GOP Plan to Cut Social Security. Now, He Should Release a Plan to Expand Social Security.
The president should challenge the GOP to release its own plan for Social Security and hold a vote. Let the American people see, in the light of day, what each party stands for.
Feb 08, 2023
Last night, President Joe Biden called out Congressional Republicans for their plans to cut Social Security and Medicare. Several Republicans erupted in outrage, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) yelled “liar.” In response, Biden said “I enjoy conversion…as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now, right?” and urged the entire room to “stand up for seniors.” Many Republicans in the room, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy, stood up and applauded.
This was a masterful moment of stagecraft from President Biden. But no one should mistake it for any real commitment from Republicans to back off their deeply held desire to cut Social Security and Medicare. Fortunately, Biden himself doesn’t appear to be making any such mistake.
After the speech, Biden tweeted “Look: I welcome all converts. But now, let’s see your budget.” Similarly, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said yesterday afternoon that McCarthy “says he wants cuts, where? He hasn't named a single place where he wants them. Is it going to be Social Security or Medicare? Don't just say no, prove it. Show us your plan."
Biden and Schumer are right. Republicans have a long history of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare. Republican leaders keep saying — often to their donors behind closed doors — that they want to do it. Most recently, former Vice President Mike Pence told a closed door conference that he wants to “replace the New Deal with a better deal” by privatizing Social Security, handing our earned benefits over to Wall Street.
Pence was only the latest in a long line of Republicans with plans to cut Social Security and Medicare. Last year, the Republican Study Committee, which counts about 75 percent of House Republicans as members, released a budget that would raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare to 70, decimate middle class Social Security benefits, and voucherize Medicare. These are the very same House Republicans who erupted in outrage last night!
The story is no different in the Senate, where Senator John Thune (R-SD), the second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, has said that he wants to use the debt limit to force cuts to Social Security and other programs. Thune specifically endorsed raising the retirement age.
Thune’s colleagues have plans of their own. Last year, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) released a plan to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every five years. Scott recently compared spending on the programs to “alcoholism.” Not to be outdone, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) wants to turn Social Security and Medicare into discretionary spending, putting them in jeopardy every year, and says that Social Security was “set up improperly.”
Yet despite all these plans, Republicans realize that cutting Social Security and Medicare is incredibly unpopular, even with their own voters. That’s why, when Biden put them on the spot, they had no choice but to stand and applaud for protecting benefits. And it’s why they’re so desperate to go behind closed doors and force Democrats to cut benefits, so that the public can’t see which party’s fingerprints are on the cuts.
Two bills, the TRUST Act and the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act, would do just that. Both of these bills would create fast-tracked commissions to cut Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors. They are designed to give politicians cover to enact unpopular benefit cuts and claim they had no choice.
The Biden Administration has rightfully called these bills “death panels” for Social Security and Medicare. Democrats must stand strong and refuse to go behind closed doors with Republicans. They must continue to make it clear, as Biden did last night, that only a clean increase in the debt limit with no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other program is acceptable.
Additionally, Democrats should follow the lead of Biden and Schumer by continuing to demand Republicans release their specific budget plan. Until Republicans release a budget that doesn’t cut a single penny from current or future Social Security and Medicare benefits, their claims that the programs are “off the table” are empty words. Furthermore, every member of Congress — Republicans and Democrats alike — should take the pledge to never cut Social Security and Medicare under any circumstances.
Democrats should make it clear to the American people which party supports Social Security by holding a vote on expanding, never cutting, Social Security’s modest benefits. Democratic legislators have already authored several plans to do just that. President Biden ran on a similar plan. Now, he should release an official White House plan that expands Social Security with no cuts and requires the wealthiest to pay their fair share.
Then, Biden should challenge Republicans to release their own plan for Social Security and hold a vote. Let the American people see, in the light of day, the plan that each party has for the future of our earned benefits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Believe Him,' Say Critics, as McCarthy Signals GOP Plan to Attack Social Security, Medicare
"The future of Social Security and Medicare is on the ballot this November," said one advocate. "Republicans, led by Kevin McCarthy, are united in a plot to reach into our pockets and steal our money."
Oct 18, 2022
Progressives on Tuesday warned that U.S. voters should take House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans at their word when they threaten to enact cuts to Social Security and Medicare despite the cost-of-living crisis that already has Americans struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
In an interview with Punchbowl News Tuesday, the California Republican outlined plans to use the expected fight over the raising of the debt ceiling next year as leverage to pass several austerity policies and block additional aid for Ukraine, as well as blocking pandemic-related spending.
"If people want to make a debt ceiling [for a longer period of time], just like anything else, there comes a point in time where, okay, we'll provide you more money, but you got to change your current behavior," McCarthy told the outlet. "And we should seriously sit together and [figure out] where can we eliminate some waste?"
"The Republican 'solution' to inflation is to hold the full faith and credit of the U.S. government hostage unless they are able to enact huge cuts to Social Security and Medicare."
The "behavior" and supposed "waste" McCarthy has in mind likely includes the New Deal-era Social Security program, which helps keep 22.1 million Americans out of poverty, and Medicare. Working Americans' taxes keep both programs running and allow millions to benefit from them, but Republicans including Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Rick Scott (Fla.) have said this year that they should not be considered mandatory programs and should instead be brought up for a vote every five years or even annually.
McCarthy told Punchbowl that he wouldn't "predetermine" the "structural changes" his party plans to make to Medicare and Social Security, but he did suggest the Republicans will exploit the raising of the debt limit, which is expected by the second half of 2023, to force changes.
The debt limit is the amount of money the federal government is permitted to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Medicare, Social Security, tax refunds, and other payments. Failing to raise the debt ceiling and defaulting on those obligations could cause a global financial crisis.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) accused the Republicans of planning to "hold the full faith and credit of the U.S. government hostage unless they are able to enact huge cuts" to the programs.
Social Security Works, which advocates for the strengthening and expansion of the Social Security program, urged voters to make their decisions with McCarthy's words in mind.
"Kevin McCarthy says he will cut Social Security and Medicare if he becomes Speaker," the group said. "Believe him!"
The Republican leader's comments represent just the latest time the party has publicized "their #1 priority if they gain control of Congress: Cut, privatize, and ultimately destroy the American people's earned Social Security and Medicare benefits," said Alex Lawson, executive director of the group.
"The future of Social Security and Medicare is on the ballot this November. Democrats are united in support of protecting and expanding benefits," he added. "Republicans, led by Kevin McCarthy, are united in a plot to reach into our pockets and steal our money."
The GOP has long repeated false claims that Social Security and Medicare are unaffordable for the U.S. As progressives including Sanders have said in recent months, based on the latest report from the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, the program is fully funded until 2035 and would be able to pay fro 90% of benefits for the next 25 years, even without Congress passing legislation that Democrats have proposed to expand it.
With the New York Times' latest polling showing that Republicans have gained a significant advantage in the upcoming midterm elections, Jim Roberts of The 74 warned, "to put it bluntly, the future of Medicare and Social Security hangs in the balance this November."
Journalist Judd Legum noted Tuesday that while Republicans have been clear with the political press about their intentions, they aren't running ads promising Social Security and Medicare cuts.
That is likely because "recent polling shows that 77% of Americans, including 76% of Republicans, support increasing Social Security benefits," he said.
As Common Dreams reported Monday, progressive strategists are calling on the party to spend the final three weeks before the election focusing intently on Republicans' plans to cut programs millions of Americans count on--Democrats' proposals to strengthen those programs, hold corporate price-gougers accountable, and bring relief to working families.
Matthew Gertz of Media Matters for America also called on the corporate media to make Republicans' proposals abundantly clear to readers.
"The media should inform voters about the stakes of this election, not carry water for Republicans by hiding their plans!" tweeted Social Security Works.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Slam 'Economically Catastrophic' GOP Ploy to Gut Social Security and Medicare
"Republicans are once again getting in line to raise costs for low- and middle-income workers and families while offering giveaways to the wealthiest and corporate interests," said Rep. Don Beyer.
Oct 12, 2022
The Democratic chair of the congressional Joint Economic Committee warned Wednesday that the GOP's plan to use a looming debt ceiling fight as leverage to secure cuts to Social Security and Medicare would be "economically catastrophic for seniors, families, and our entire economy."
"Past debt-limit brinksmanship resulted in the first-ever downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and cost the country billions of dollars in lost economic activity, even though a default was ultimately avoided," Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said in a statement after several House Republicans outlined their intentions in interviews with Bloomberg Government on Tuesday.
"Republicans have let us in on their plans for Medicare and Social Security--raise the eligibility age and cut benefits. Seniors deserve better."
"This announcement comes after a previous proposal from the leader of the Senate Republicans' campaign committee to sunset Social Security, Medicare, and veterans' benefits in five years," Beyer continued, referring to Sen. Rick Scott's (R-Fla.) proposal. "Republicans are once again getting in line to raise costs for low- and middle-income workers and families while offering giveaways to the wealthiest and corporate interests."
"Not only are these economically disastrous--resulting in fewer jobs, slower economic growth, and higher household costs--they are morally reprehensible," the Virginia Democrat added.
Several House Republicans vying for the chairmanship of the chamber's budget committee told Bloomberg that they view a debt ceiling clash--which is expected early next year as the Treasury Department reaches its arbitrary borrowing limit--as an opportunity to pursue long-sought changes to Social Security and Medicare, including benefit cuts and an increase in the retirement age.
"The debt limit is clearly one of those tools that Republicans--that a Republican-controlled Congress--will use," said Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who is currently the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
With the pivotal November midterms less than a month away, House Democrats wasted little time pouncing on the GOP's latest signal that it plans to pursue cuts to Social Security and Medicare if it retakes control of Congress in the midterm elections, despite the programs' popularity.
"Republicans have let us in on their plans for Medicare and Social Security--raise the eligibility age and cut benefits. Seniors deserve better," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), chair of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, wrote on social media Tuesday. "My plan, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, will protect and expand benefits, not cut them!"
Politico reported late last month that a number of Republican congressional candidates--including Arizona U.S. Senate nominee Blake Masters and New Hampshire U.S. Senate hopeful Don Bolduc--have voiced support for cutting or privatizing Social Security and Medicare on the campaign trail in recent weeks.
"The privatization is hugely important," Bolduc said of Medicare and Medicaid during an August town hall. "Getting government out of it, getting government money with strings attached out of it."
The official policy agenda of House Republicans also leaves the door open to Medicare and Social Security cuts and privatization, as Common Dreams reported last month.
In key battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Democratic candidates have seized on their GOP opponents' attacks on traditional Medicare and Social Security and vowed to defend the programs from right-wing attacks.
After incumbent Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said in an August radio interview that Congress "ought to turn everything into discretionary spending" and characterized mandatory Social Security and Medicare outlays as a "debt burden," Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes warned that the GOP senator "wants to strip working people of the Social Security and Medicare they've earned."
Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate John Fetterman has issued similar warnings about his Republican opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz, who has pledged to further privatize Medicare.
"We can never allow Social Security and Medicare to be weakened by the GOP," Fetterman wrote in a recent Twitter post. "Dr. Oz would be another vote to take away these critical lifelines for our seniors."
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