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
trust act
Most US House Incumbents Filed Financial Disclosure Extensions Amid Push for Stock Trading Ban
"It's a giant red flag when so many representatives are beating out the S&P 500 despite the most tumultuous market in years, raising questions whether some are taking advantage of their privileged positions," said one ethics advocate.
Jul 07, 2023
The government watchdog Accountable.US reported Friday that a majority of incumbent members in the U.S. House of Representatives filed extensions this year for their 2022 financial disclosures, a revelation that comes as congressional Democrats are leading multiple bills that would ban lawmakers and their relatives from stock trading and other self-dealing.
According to the Accountable.US analysis, 257 House incumbents—or nearly 60% of all lower chamber lawmakers—filed for financial disclosure extensions for last year. Of those 257 lawmakers, 140 were Republicans. Nine out of 10 House members filing for extensions sought the maximum 90-day postponement.
"It's a giant red flag when so many representatives are beating out the S&P 500 despite the most tumultuous market in years, raising questions whether some are taking advantage of their privileged positions," Liz Zelnick, who directs the economic security and corporate power program at Accountable.US, said in a statement.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the Stop Trading Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012 require annual financial disclosures by members of Congress in order to identify and take action when government officials use their positions of influence for personal gain.
However, critics have long called existing legislation "toothless," while calling for more stringent safeguards against self-dealing by members of Congress.
"The status quo has allowed many in Congress to trade in secret by kicking the can on public disclosure, which only invites corruption and conflicts of interest," Zelnick argued. "The less means and opportunity Congress has to use their influence to game the stock market for personal and family gain, the less it will happen."
Common Dreams noted last September that nearly 100 members of Congress reported trading stock in companies influenced by their committees.
Several proposed measures—including the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust in Congress (TRUST) Act, the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, and the Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act—would ban members of Congress and their families from owning or trading shares.
"If the MAGA House majority is unwilling to act on popular and bipartisan efforts to prevent self-dealing on Wall Street and restore public trust in government, it would only raise more questions about what they have to hide," said Zelnick.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Simple Choice: Social Security or Billionaire Greed
Any politician who expresses concern about Social Security's finances without being willing to tax the rich is a phony. Nothing but a phony.
Feb 28, 2023
Like they used to say in the old neighborhood, some things ain't complicated. If your senator or representative won't tax the wealthy to protect and expand Social Security, then they care more about America's 728 billionaires than they do about the 66 million children, disabled, and older people currently receiving benefits—or the many millions that will follow them. They don't deserve to stay in office if they can't represent their own people.
Social Security is a vast, highly successful program. That makes it sound complicated. It's not. It was built on simple moral and operational principles. Among them was universality, the idea that the program should include everyone, and the notion that everyone should pay their fair share. Unfortunately, the millionaires and billionaires plundering the economy aren't pitching in the way they should.
That makes the choice for our elected officials simple, too: Are you going to make the wealthy step up or are you going to hide behind word-salad speeches and sleight-of-hand legislation? One thing is clear: any politician who expresses concern about Social Security's finances without being willing to tax the rich is a phony. Nothing but a phony.
We're looking at you, Mitt Romney.
The commission that worked on Social Security's finances in the 1980s raised the cap on the Social Security payroll tax, with the expectation that it would capture 90 percent of the income earned in this country. As Linda Benesch notes, however, rising income inequality has caused that number to plummet. As of February 28, 2023, a person making a million dollars per year has finished paying into Social Security for the year. (I calculated that figure for Jeff Bezos once; he was done paying his "fair share" about 28 seconds after the New Year's Eve ball dropped in Times Square!) Moreover, wealthy people earn the lion's share of their income from non-payroll sources like investments and business revenue. That isn't taxed for Social Security at all.
Social Security is a vast, highly successful program. That makes it sound complicated. It's not.
Meanwhile, here in the real world, people making less than $160,200 annually—that is, the vast majority of American workers—will be paying this tax all year.
That's why the idea of "scrapping the cap" on this tax is so compelling. Sen. Bernie Sanders' Social Security Expansion Act would re-impose this payroll tax on income above $250,000 and would add in the kinds of non-payroll income that mainly benefit the super-wealthy. In the House, a bill from Rep. John Larson would scrap the cap on income above $400,000.
Both bills substantially expand Social Security while bringing in substantial new revenue. The Larson bill would provide a sizeable down payment and the Sanders bill would fully fund Social Security, something politicians like Sen. Mitt Romney claim to be concerned about. Romney has wept crocodile tears over the program's expected revenue shortfall for years, but he's ruled out tax increases.
People say we live in a divided country, but Americans are united on this subject. 71 percent of voters polled after the last election want Congress to "protect Social Security and Medicare." The message to Capitol Hill is simple: do your damned jobs.
Romney's proposed bill, which in an Orwellian flourish is called "the TRUST Act," would create "congressional rescue committees" that would meet privately to determine the fate of critical social programs. Since Romney (who is extremely wealthy himself) opposes revenue hikes, that leaves only benefit cuts.
It will take ongoing political pressure to protect and expand Social Security. But it will be a great day when it happens.
Romney and his cosponsors hope to elude responsibility for their actions by hiding behind as-yet-unnamed committee members and their backroom deliberations. That includes some Democrats. The bill's Democratic backers, including Joe Manchin, are more likely than Romney to say that they're open to hiking taxes on the wealthy. But they're supporting a 'bipartisan' process with Republicans who will never go along with that.
These Dems know that. They're trying to have it both ways—sounding reasonable while promoting a process that's designed to lead to cuts and cuts alone.
And make no mistake: that's the play. Romney's bill uses a well-worn playbook for trying to cut popular programs. As the bill's summary says, "Congress must use specified expedited legislative procedures to consider legislation that is approved and submitted by the rescue committees." In other words, it gets rushed to the floor for a vote for an immediate up-or-down vote, without committee review or the chance to revise it.
That's an attempt to circumvent democracy. Public trust in our democracy has plunged to frightening lows as the wealthy buy more and more custom-designed legislation. The TRUST Act is designed to make an undemocratic and unaccountable political process even more undemocratic and unaccountable.
That's what the Simpson/Bowles Deficit Commission tried to do during the Obama administration. It's part of the old anti-government playbook laid out by billionaire Pete Peterson and the astroturf anti-social-welfare organizations he funded for decades. One pro-TRUST congressional Dem even used a Peterson-funded, consultant-designed phrase to defend his actions. If I hear the words "we have kicked this can down the road for too long" again I won't be responsible for my actions. Maybe somebody's can should get kicked, but it ain't yours or mine.
Maybe somebody's can should get kicked, but it ain't yours or mine.
Don't count the double-talkers out. There's a lot of money riding on this, and it's all with the billionaires. It will take ongoing political pressure to protect and expand Social Security. But it will be a great day when it happens. Taxing the wealthy will have other benefits, too. It will strengthen the social contract when the public sees their country's oligarchs being forced to assume some responsibility for the society that enriched them. It might reduce their stranglehold on politics a little, too.
This country's billionaires gained more than $2.1 trillion in wealth since the pandemic began and now have total estimated riches of $5.1 trillion. Meanwhile, almost half of all Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all. The average person on Social Security only gets $1,688 per month. And you're trying to tell us that's what this country can't afford?
As we used to say in the old neighborhood: Get outta here.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Rip 'MAGA Extremists' Over Plan to Hike Social Security Retirement Age to 70
"Medicare and Social Security are non-negotiable," responded Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan. "Risking default or robbing seniors of hard-earned benefits are not options."
Jan 24, 2023
Not even a month after assuming the majority in the House, Republicans have begun seriously considering a range of proposals to cut Social Security, Medicare, and other federal programs that millions of people across the U.S. rely on to meet basic needs.
The
Washington Post reported Tuesday that "in recent days, a group of GOP lawmakers has called for the creation of special panels that might recommend changes to Social Security and Medicare" while other Republicans "have resurfaced more detailed plans to cut costs, including by raising the Social Security retirement age to 70"—a change that would impose across-the-board benefit cuts.
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), the leader of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), told the Post that Congress has "no choice but to make hard decisions" even as experts dispute the GOP narrative that Social Security is in crisis.
Last year, the RSC suggested several possible changes to Social Security, including partial privatization and gradually raising the "full retirement age" from 67 to 70.
Rep. Rick Allen (R-Ga.), a supporter of raising the retirement age, claimed earlier this month that people "actually want to work longer."
"MAGA extremists in Congress are eager to use the debt they exacerbated with tax breaks for wealthy corporations as an excuse to threaten the health and retirement security of millions of hard-working Americans," Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US, said in a statement Tuesday. "It says it all about the MAGA majority fringe economic plan: Deep cuts to earned benefits for seniors and working people while protecting or even expanding wasteful tax breaks for billionaires and giant corporations."
"For nearly nine decades, Social Security has kept generations of seniors and Americans with disabilities out of poverty and allowed seniors to live out their Golden Years with dignity," Zelnick added. "For nearly 60 years, Medicare has provided millions of seniors with access to life-improving health benefits no matter their income or condition. MAGA extremists want to break the promise of guaranteed benefits that has been kept for generations—benefits earned through years of hard work—rather than ask for any contribution from their biggest and wealthiest donors, especially greedy corporations."
"Today, a billionaire pays the same amount into Social Security as someone making $160,000 a year."
Due to soaring income inequality, a rising share of rich people's earnings has not been subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which didn't apply to any wage income above $147,000 in 2022. Because of that $147,000 cap, millionaires stopped paying into Social Security on February 24 of last year.
Over the weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he plans to reintroduce his legislation that would "extend Social Security's solvency for the next 75 years and expand benefits by $2,400 a year" by lifting the payroll tax cap.
"Today, a billionaire pays the same amount into Social Security as someone making $160,000 a year," Sanders wrote on Twitter. "Let's end that absurdity."
But scrapping the payroll tax cap is not among the changes that House Republicans have floated in recent weeks as they threaten another round of debt ceiling brinkmanship.
As the Post noted Tuesday, the RSC proposal released last year raised the "possibility that lawmakers could rethink payroll taxes, allowing the money to fund private-sector retirement options."
Republicans and one Democrat— Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia—have also spoken favorably of the TRUST Act, a bill led by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would establish bipartisan committees to craft "legislation that restores solvency and otherwise improves" the nation's trust funds, including Social Security.
"The idea could gain some traction in the House, where [Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)] pointed to the bill as he stressed the need to 'work together and not make this so political,'" the Post reported Tuesday. "Another top Republican, Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), led a group of Democratic and GOP lawmakers two years ago in calling for 'special, bipartisan, bicameral rescue committees' to study Social Security, Medicare, and other federal trust funds."
While many House Republicans gun for cuts and other regressive changes to Social Security, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Angus King (I-Maine) are working on legislation that "would see the federal government create a new fund with borrowed money, which it would invest in stocks to cover future retirement benefits," Semafor reported last week.
"That maneuver is designed to cash in on the higher returns that equities usually earn compared to the Treasury bonds that Social Security’s current trust fund invests in," the outlet explained.
The American Prospect's Ryan Cooper welcomed the idea as "splendid and long-overdue" but acknowledged that something like the TRUST Act "probably has a better political chance of success than Cassidy and King’s more fair and technically competent approach."
"Official Washington prefers elite politicians making 'hard choices' to slash benefits for seniors on fixed incomes," Cooper wrote in a column on Monday. "But a social wealth fund is an idea worth underlining."
President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats have vowed to oppose any GOP push for Social Security cuts, demanding clean legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avert an economic disaster.
“Republicans won a majority in the House and they’re allowed to advocate for their priorities, but it is unacceptable to take American families and the economy hostage in this way," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement last week. "Democrats will not entertain these threats from Republicans, particularly to Medicare and Social Security. Republicans must stand down on the debt limit immediately."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), chair emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote on Twitter Tuesday that "Medicare and Social Security are non-negotiable."
"Americans work hard and contribute to these programs with every paycheck," Pocan added. "Republicans raised the debt ceiling three times under Trump. Risking default or robbing seniors of hard-earned benefits are not options."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Manchin-Romney Attack on Social Security Is 'Last Thing We Need': Sanders
The Vermont Independent called for expanding popular federal programs rather than allowing a bipartisan commission to propose devastating cuts.
Jan 21, 2023
Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday slammed right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin's widely panned proposal to explore slashing Social Security benefits as part of a debt ceiling pact with Republicans.
During a Wednesday interview with Fox Business at the ruling class' annual gathering in Davos for the World Economic Forum, Manchin (W.Va.) suggested that members of both major U.S. political parties "work together" on solving the nation's so-called "debt problem." Although Manchin didn't explicitly demand cuts to Social Security and expressed opposition to GOP calls for privatization, he singled out the program for intervention, saying that Congress "should be able to solidify it."
Given that Republicans are currently threatening to tank the global economy unless Democrats agree to reduce social spending, Manchin's unilateral call for appeasement has set off alarm bells.
What's especially concerning to progressives is that the corporate-backed lawmaker is the co-author, alongside Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), of the TRUST Act, a bill that would enable Congress to create bipartisan "rescue" committees for the nation's trust fund programs—including Social Security and Medicare—and give the panels 180 days to develop "legislation that restores solvency and otherwise improves each." Measures put forth by the bipartisan committees would be fast-tracked for floor votes in both chambers of Congress, with no amendments allowed.
Not only is Social Security legally incapable of adding to the federal deficit, but budget analysts have shown that the program is financially sound, requiring just a small increase in payroll tax revenue to ensure full benefits beyond 2035.
"The last thing we need is another commission to propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare," Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted Saturday.
"The disastrous Bowles-Simpson 'fiscal commission' came very close to passing Congress some ten years ago. Bernie led the fight against it. It was a bad idea then, it is an even worse idea now."
"The last time we had one, it proposed cutting Social Security benefits for middle-class seniors by up to 35% and cutting tax rates for billionaires," Sanders added, referring to the notorious 2010 Bowles-Simpson Commission, on which Manchin and Romney's bill is based.
Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson (Wyo.), the Obama-appointed chairs of that commission, both endorsed the TRUST Act in 2021, calling it "important and vital."
Historically informed critics, by contrast, have condemned Manchin and Romney's legislation as "a Trojan horse to cut seniors' benefits."
Sanders' staff director Warren Gunnels provided additional historical context on Saturday, linking to a 2012 essay in which the senator explained that in addition to seeking to cut wealthy households' tax rates and current retirees' Social Security benefits, the panel also proposed raising the retirement age to 69 years, slashing veterans' benefits, increasing interest rates on student loans, and eliminating 450,000 federal jobs, among other harmful measures.
On Wednesday, Manchin asserted that his and Romney's bill could be used to secure a debt ceiling deal with House Republicans, many of whom have vowed to not lift the country's borrowing cap—an arbitrary and arguably unconstitutional figure set by Congress—unless Democrats agree to shred vital social programs.
The U.S. government's outstanding debt officially hit the statutory limit of $31.4 trillion on Thursday, at which point the Treasury Department started repurposing federal funds.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told congressional leaders last week that "the use of extraordinary measures enables the government to meet its obligations for only a limited amount of time," possibly through early June. She implored Congress to "act in a timely manner to increase or suspend the debt limit," warning that "failure to meet the government's obligations would cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy, the livelihoods of all Americans, and global financial stability."
Notably, Capitol Hill's deficit hawks do not support reducing the Pentagon's ever-expanding budget or hiking taxes on the rich to increase revenue. On the contrary, the first bill unveiled by House Republicans in the 118th Congress seeks to rescind most of the Inflation Reduction Act's roughly $80 billion funding boost for the Internal Revenue Service—a move that would help wealthy households evade taxes and add an estimated $114 billion to the federal deficit.
A 2011 debt ceiling standoff enabled the GOP to impose austerity and also resulted in a historic downgrading of the U.S. government's credit rating, but the country has never defaulted on its debt. Economists warn that doing so would likely trigger chaos in financial markets, leading to millions of job losses and the erasure of $15 trillion in wealth.
Knowing that a painful recession is at stake, "many leading Republican lawmakers are demanding that their new House majority use the debt limit as leverage to force the Biden administration to accept sweeping spending cuts that Democrats oppose, creating an impasse with no clear resolution at hand," the Washington Post reported last week.
Manchin claims to have spoken "briefly" with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the TRUST Act. Asked about the White House's opposition to attaching any policy concessions to a debt ceiling agreement, Manchin said he believes the Biden administration will change its tune and negotiate with Republicans.
Alex Lawson, the executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams earlier this week that President Joe Biden should "reiterate his commitment to only signing a clean debt limit increase, and specifically rule out a closed-door commission designed to cut Social Security."
Lawson's sentiment was echoed Saturday by Gunnels, who wrote on social media: "I'm old enough to remember that the disastrous Bowles-Simpson 'fiscal commission' came very close to passing Congress some ten years ago. Bernie led the fight against it. It was a bad idea then, it is an even worse idea now."
Rather than allowing a bipartisan commission to propose devastating cuts, Sanders argued, "we must instead expand Social Security."
Surveys have shown that U.S. voters are strongly opposed to cutting or privatizing Social Security and want Congress to expand the program. Last year, Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led the introduction of the Social Security Expansion Act, which would lift the cap on income that is subject to the Social Security payroll tax and boost the program's annual benefits by $2,400.
According to Data for Progress, 76% of likely voters—including 83% of Democrats, 73% of Republicans, and 73% of independents—support imposing, for the first time, payroll taxes on individuals with annual incomes above $400,000 per year to fund an expansion of Social Security benefits. Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Say 'Hell No' as Manchin Pitches Social Security Deal With GOP
One advocate urged President Joe Biden to "reiterate his commitment to only signing a clean debt limit increase, and specifically rule out a closed-door commission designed to cut Social Security."
Jan 19, 2023
Sen. Joe Manchin provoked outrage Wednesday by suggesting congressional Democrats should agree to pursue changes to Social Security as part of a debt ceiling agreement with Republicans, an idea one advocacy group condemned as "negotiating with legislative terrorists."
In an interview on Fox Business—conducted at the annual gathering of corporate and political elites in Davos, Switzerland—the West Virginia Democrat said that "we have a debt problem" and argued members of both parties should "work together" on solutions. The senator singled out Social Security, even though the program can't by law add to long-term deficits.
While Manchin voiced opposition to GOP calls to privatize Social Security, saying such proposals "scare the bejesus out of people," he said Congress "should be able to solidify it, so the people who have worked and earned it know they're going to get it."
The problem, from the perspective of Social Security defenders, is Manchin's suggested avenue for reforms: Bipartisan congressional committees that critics have denounced as "a Trojan horse to cut seniors' benefits."
"Hell no to even a single penny of cuts to Social Security's earned benefits," the progressive group Social Security Works tweeted Wednesday in response to Manchin's comments. "Hell no to fast-track commissions designed to cut benefits behind closed doors."
Under legislation that Manchin has introduced alongside Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Congress would establish bipartisan "rescue" committees for the nation's trust fund programs—including Social Security and Medicare—and give the panels 180 days to devise "legislation that restores solvency and otherwise improves each." (Analysts and advocates reject the notion that Social Security is in financial crisis and needs "rescuing.")
The bills produced by the bipartisan committees would then be placed on an expedited path to floor votes in both chambers of Congress, with no amendments allowed.
Manchin and Romney's legislation, known as the TRUST Act, is explicitly modeled after the infamous Simpson-Bowles Commission that recommended deep cuts to Social Security in 2011. Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson (Wyo.) and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, the Obama-appointed chairs of the commission, both endorsed the TRUST Act in 2021, calling the bill "important and vital."
In his Fox Business interview on Wednesday, Manchin said his legislation could be used to secure a debt ceiling agreement with House Republicans, who have threatened repeatedly to use the borrowing limit as leverage to push for Social Security cuts.
Manchin told host Maria Bartiromo that he has spoken "briefly" with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the TRUST Act. Asked about the White House's stand against attaching any conditions to a debt ceiling agreement, Manchin said he "really" thinks the administration will reverse course and negotiate with Republicans.
Alex Lawson, the executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams that President Joe Biden should "reiterate his commitment to only signing a clean debt limit increase, and specifically rule out a closed-door commission designed to cut Social Security," in response to the West Virginia Democrat's comments.
"Manchin is providing cover for Republican attacks on Social Security and Medicare," Lawson said. "Democrats must stand with President Biden in his calls for a clean debt ceiling [increase] and an end to Republican attacks on our earned benefits."
"MAGA extremists plan to use national debt they exacerbated with tax breaks for billionaires and profiteering corporations as an excuse to gut Social Security and Medicare."
Manchin's interview came hours before the federal government officially hit the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling on Thursday, prompting the Treasury Department to begin implementing "extraordinary measures" to ensure it can continue meeting its obligations as it awaits congressional action.
"The period of time that extraordinary measures may last is subject to considerable uncertainty, including the challenges of forecasting the payments and receipts of the U.S. government months into the future," Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wrote in a letter to congressional leaders on Thursday. "I respectfully urge Congress to act promptly to protect the full faith and credit of the United States."
Lindsay Owens, executive director of the progressive Groundwork Collaborative, said it is "economically, fiscally, and morally irresponsible" for House Republicans to be playing games with the debt ceiling and "there's absolutely no reason for Sen. Manchin or anyone else to play along."
"We saw this movie in 2011 when politicians negotiated over the debt limit and ended up strangling the economy with years of devastating cuts for workers and families," Owens added. "We can't let that happen again.”
Failure to raise the debt limit—an arbitrary and arguably unconstitutional figure set by Congress—could result in the first-ever U.S. default and a devastating financial crisis, potentially wiping out millions of jobs.
Liz Zelnick, director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power program at Accountable.US, said in a statement Thursday that "whether or not the nation suffers a default crisis that could crush jobs is entirely up to MAGA extremists in Congress."
"The MAGA majority could vote today to meet the nation's prior debt obligations but instead a growing number want to manufacture a crisis to cut apart social safety nets for the most vulnerable Americans," said Zelnick. "Make no mistake: MAGA extremists plan to use national debt they exacerbated with tax breaks for billionaires and profiteering corporations as an excuse to gut Social Security and Medicare benefits for America's seniors and working people. They're dusting off an old conservative playbook: Make everyone else pay for their reckless giveaways to wealthy special interests."
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