
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the Senate floor on Monday. (Screenshot)
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on the Senate floor on Monday. (Screenshot)
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on Tuesday to repeal a new Labor Department rule aimed at protecting retirement savers from Wall Street brokers.
Yes, you read that right.
The Labor Department rule, issued last month, requires financial advisors to adhere to a "fiduciary standard" that places client interests ahead of potential profits for themselves.
As Think Progressexplained in April:
Before the new standard, advisers were only required to give "suitable" advice, which left the door open for them to steer clients into products that made the advisers more money but weren't the best option. That practice was costing Americans an estimated $17 billion a year in conflicted advice, according to the White House. Some people say their finances, particularly their chances of retiring comfortably, have been destroyed by bad advice and that they would have simply been better off without it.
House Republicans last month passed a resolution to overturn the rule. With President Barack Obama already threatening to veto the measure, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez called the House vote "a waste of time."
Senate Republicans, who say the "paternalistic" rule will increase the cost of retirement advice, appear poised to pursue a similar charade. They need just a simple majority to send the bill to Obama's desk.
In a speech on the Senate floor on Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed incredulity: "Why would anyone on Earth vote to overturn a rule designed to protect Americans from financial fraud?"
And then she answered her own question. "Why? Because it's an election year."
"The Senate will be voting be make it easier--easier--for shady financial institutions and unscrupulous financial advisors to mislead investors about the quality of investments so those advisors can continue pushing lousy products," she said.
"I will be voting no," she continued, "because we weren't sent here just to raise money for re-elections. If [Republicans] don't remember it soon, you better bet the American people will remind them in November."
Watch Warren's speech below:
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on Tuesday to repeal a new Labor Department rule aimed at protecting retirement savers from Wall Street brokers.
Yes, you read that right.
The Labor Department rule, issued last month, requires financial advisors to adhere to a "fiduciary standard" that places client interests ahead of potential profits for themselves.
As Think Progressexplained in April:
Before the new standard, advisers were only required to give "suitable" advice, which left the door open for them to steer clients into products that made the advisers more money but weren't the best option. That practice was costing Americans an estimated $17 billion a year in conflicted advice, according to the White House. Some people say their finances, particularly their chances of retiring comfortably, have been destroyed by bad advice and that they would have simply been better off without it.
House Republicans last month passed a resolution to overturn the rule. With President Barack Obama already threatening to veto the measure, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez called the House vote "a waste of time."
Senate Republicans, who say the "paternalistic" rule will increase the cost of retirement advice, appear poised to pursue a similar charade. They need just a simple majority to send the bill to Obama's desk.
In a speech on the Senate floor on Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed incredulity: "Why would anyone on Earth vote to overturn a rule designed to protect Americans from financial fraud?"
And then she answered her own question. "Why? Because it's an election year."
"The Senate will be voting be make it easier--easier--for shady financial institutions and unscrupulous financial advisors to mislead investors about the quality of investments so those advisors can continue pushing lousy products," she said.
"I will be voting no," she continued, "because we weren't sent here just to raise money for re-elections. If [Republicans] don't remember it soon, you better bet the American people will remind them in November."
Watch Warren's speech below:
The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on Tuesday to repeal a new Labor Department rule aimed at protecting retirement savers from Wall Street brokers.
Yes, you read that right.
The Labor Department rule, issued last month, requires financial advisors to adhere to a "fiduciary standard" that places client interests ahead of potential profits for themselves.
As Think Progressexplained in April:
Before the new standard, advisers were only required to give "suitable" advice, which left the door open for them to steer clients into products that made the advisers more money but weren't the best option. That practice was costing Americans an estimated $17 billion a year in conflicted advice, according to the White House. Some people say their finances, particularly their chances of retiring comfortably, have been destroyed by bad advice and that they would have simply been better off without it.
House Republicans last month passed a resolution to overturn the rule. With President Barack Obama already threatening to veto the measure, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez called the House vote "a waste of time."
Senate Republicans, who say the "paternalistic" rule will increase the cost of retirement advice, appear poised to pursue a similar charade. They need just a simple majority to send the bill to Obama's desk.
In a speech on the Senate floor on Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) expressed incredulity: "Why would anyone on Earth vote to overturn a rule designed to protect Americans from financial fraud?"
And then she answered her own question. "Why? Because it's an election year."
"The Senate will be voting be make it easier--easier--for shady financial institutions and unscrupulous financial advisors to mislead investors about the quality of investments so those advisors can continue pushing lousy products," she said.
"I will be voting no," she continued, "because we weren't sent here just to raise money for re-elections. If [Republicans] don't remember it soon, you better bet the American people will remind them in November."
Watch Warren's speech below: