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
Elon’s Obscene Spending Shows Campaign Finance Reform Is Critical
Federal records have revealed that billionaire Elon Musk spent a quarter of a billion dollars to help win Trump the presidency, with most of this money coming into play in the final weeks of the campaign.
In response, Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, issued the following statement:
“The clear story from the final federal campaign filings of 2024 is of the damage concentrated money in politics does to our elections. We learned that Elon Musk spent an obscene $250 million to put Donald Trump in office. This includes being the sole backer of a Super PAC that vandalized Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s image to try and change Trump’s public abortion position. Rich billionaires and corporate money simply ran the table in the 2024 election. They singlehandedly made the case for the aggressive campaign finance reforms we need to fix our system and get big money out of politics.”
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Here's How the GOP Could Cut Over $5 Trillion—And Gut Healthcare, Climate Action
"Americans: We just want higher wages and lower costs. Republicans: We are going to take away your healthcare."
Jan 10, 2025
Some Democratic lawmakers and other critics of congressional Republicans on Friday pointed to a document obtained by Politico as just the latest evidence that the looming GOP trifecta at the federal level poses a threat to working families nationwide.
"Americans: We just want higher wages and lower costs. Republicans: We are going to take away your healthcare," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said in response to the reporting, which came as Republicans have taken control of both chambers of Congress and prepare for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration in just over a week.
The one-page list originated from the House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), Politico reported, citing five unnamed sources. One of them explained that the "document is not intended to serve as a proposal, but instead as a menu of potential spending reductions for members to consider."
The document lists various policies that it claims would collectively cut up to $5.7 trillion. Republicans have been discussing how to offset the high costs of top priorities—specifically, Trump's immigration policies and plans for tax cuts that critics warn would largely benefit the wealthy, like the law he signed in 2017.
"In order to make his rich, billionaire buddies richer, Trump wants to kick millions off healthcare coverage and starve families. How does this help working families thrive?"
The policies are divided into eight sections, with headings that critics called "dystopian" and "Orwellian." The first calls for repealing "major" health rules from outgoing President Joe Biden's administration, which would supposedly cut $420 billion. The second section takes aim at Medicare, the federal health program for seniors, proposing policies that would cut $479 billion.
A large share of the potential cuts would come from section three, which lists seven potential changes to Medicaid, a program that provides health coverage to low-income people. The policies include per capita caps, work requirements, and lowering the federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP) floor.
"In order to make his rich, billionaire buddies richer, Trump wants to kick millions off healthcare coverage and starve families. How does this help working families thrive?" Michigan state Rep. Carrie Rheingans (D-47) asked on social media. "In this leaked list of cuts, 'lower FMAP floor' for Medicaid means states pay a higher proportion of Medicaid costs for enrollees—this just shoves [federal] costs to states so billionaires get more yacht money."
Section four of the document calls for "reimagining" the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cut $151 billion, with changes that include repealing the Prevention and Public Health Fund, limiting eligibility based on citizenship status, and reclaiming $46 billion from subsidies set to expire at the end of the year.
The fifth section lays out $347 billion in cuts by "ending cradle-to-grave dependence," targeting initiatives including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), often called food stamps.
Section six claims "reversing Biden climate policies" would cut $468 billion: $300 billion by discontinuing some provisions from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure legislation, $112 billion by rolling back electric vehicle policies, and $56 billion by repealing green energy grants from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
The seventh section is a catchall, listing up to $1 trillion in potential cuts through moves that include ending student debt forgiveness, restricting emergency spending, and reforming federal employee benefits. Section eight identifies up to $527 in potential tax offsets from requiring Social Security numbers for the child tax credit and green energy credits.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who recently agreed to use the budget reconciliation process to cut $2.5 trillion, "can't afford any Republican defections if he wants to pass a package on party lines," Politico reported. "Even proposed cuts to green energy tax credits, worth as much as $500 billion, could be tricky—as the document notes, they depend 'on political viability.' Already 18 House Republicans—14 of whom won reelection in November—warned Johnson against prematurely repealing some of the IRA's energy tax credits, which are funding multiple manufacturing projects in GOP districts."
Sharing the report on social media Friday, Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) stressed that "Republicans want to cut vital food and healthcare support programs to pay for a tax cut for billionaires and large corporations. The GOP wants working families to pay for their billionaire handouts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oregon Medical Workers Launch Largest Healthcare Strike in State History
Over 5,000 frontline healthcare professionals walked off the job at Providence hospitals and clinics across the Beaver State.
Jan 10, 2025
Thousands of Oregon medical caregivers at Providence hospitals launched what organizers are calling the largest healthcare strike in state history Friday as they fight for improved patient care, fair wages, and better working conditions in their new contract.
Around 5,000 nurses, doctors, midwives, and other healthcare professionals began their indefinite strike at 6:00 am local time Friday, Oregon Public Broadcastingreported. Workers walked off the job at Providence hospitals including: St. Vincent Medical Center in Portland, Providence Portland, Providence Willamette Falls in Oregon City, Providence Milwaukie, Providence Hood River, Providence Seaside, Providence Newberg, and Providence Medford. Numerous clinics are also affected.
Striking nurses are seeking higher wages, better nurse-to-patient ratios, more paid time off, and lower out-of-pocket costs on their healthcare plans. Doctors want Providence to cap hospital admissions when patient numbers climb too high.
"We're asking for competitive compensation that reflects the reality of our work, the long hours, the emotional toll, and the ever-growing demands that are placed on us," Oregon Nurses Association (ONA) member Gina Ottinger, a registered nurse, told the Oregon Capital Chronicle on Friday. "We're asking for wages that keep pace with inflation."
Healthcare workers' unions are also asking for employment guarantees should Providence sell off their hospitals. The unions have also flagged contract alignment issues; Providence favors a three-year deal, while workers are seeking two-year agreements.
"This strike could have been avoided," ONA executive director Anne Tan Piazza
said at a Thursday press conference. "We need Providence to stop refusing to negotiate and come back to the table."
In a recent statement explaining the strike, ONA said: "Providence is a $30 billion corporation whose top executives make million-dollar salaries and are too focused on profits and not enough on high-quality patient care. Providence's outgoing CEO made more than $12 million in 2024."
"The corporatization of healthcare has left many Providence employees frustrated and burnt out as they are being told to spend less and less time with patients and more time trying to drive up profits," the union added. "Providence offers their employees healthcare plans that are far worse than other healthcare systems, with some Providence employees having to pay $5,000 out of pocket to receive services at the place they work."
“The corporatization of health care has left many Providence employees frustrated and burnt out as they are being told to spend less ..time with patients and more time trying to drive up profits."5,000 Oregon doctors, RNS & caregivers will be on strike starting Jan 10 www.wweek.com/news/2024/12...
[image or embed]
— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten.bsky.social) January 5, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Providence officials say the company has made "competitive offers" to hospital bargaining units, "including double-digit pay increases for hospital nurses representing more than $12,000 a year for a typical nurse."
In a Friday statement referencing Oregon's mandatory 10-day strike notice period, Democratic Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said that "Providence wasted 10 days when they could have been at the table making progress towards a comprehensive resolution of their labor dispute."
"We must take care of the people who take care of Oregonians—all hospital staff deserve a fair contract," she added. "Oregonians are already experiencing disruptions to care. All parties must return to the table immediately to resolve their disagreements so normal operations and care can resume."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Completely Out of Touch... Both Parties': Supreme Court Looks Ready to OK TikTok Ban
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," said one advocate.
Jan 10, 2025
To the chagrin of First Amendment defenders and content creators, the Supreme Court on Friday appeared poised to uphold a law passed by Congress last year that would shut down the widely popular social media app TikTok in the U.S. unless its owner, the Chinese company ByteDance, sells it.
The de facto ban on TikTok was tucked into a $95 billion legislative package for aid to Ukraine and Israel that was passed by the Senate in April 2024. A standalone version of the legislation cleared the House with bipartisan support a month earlier. It is set to go into effect on January 19, barring a sale by ByteDance or intervention by the Supreme Court.
The law was justified on national security grounds, which were fueled by fears that national security laws in China could compel ByteDance to give the Chinese government access to data on TikTok users.
Nina Turner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy, wrote Thursday: "The U.S. government stood up to TikTok before they stood up to[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, or the health insurance lobby, or Big Pharma, or Big Oil—no. TikTok. Completely out of touch with the American people. Both parties."
During oral arguments, "justices across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of both sides, [but] the overall tone and thrust appeared to suggest greater skepticism toward the arguments by lawyers for TikTok and its users that the First Amendment barred Congress from enacting the law," according to Friday reporting from The New York Times.
However, the Times also noted that "several justices were skeptical about a major part of the government's justification for the law: the risk that China might 'covertly' make TikTok manipulate the content shown to Americans or collect user data to achieve its geopolitical aims."
Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court's hearing on TikTok's appeal of the ban, three bipartisan lawmakers were among the First Amendment advocates who filed amicus briefs in support of the app in late December. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asked the court to grant TikTok an emergency injunction to block the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.
The ACLU, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and the Freedom of the Press Foundation were among several civil liberties groups that also filed an amicus brief in late December, arguing that the government has not presented sufficient evidence that the app, which is used by 170 million Americans, causes "ongoing or imminent harm."
In a statement released Friday, the Free Press policy counsel Yanni Chen said that "as with repressive laws from oppressive regimes around the world, the real toll of the ban will be on everyday people... TikTok users, many of whom use the platform to organize communities and express views that legacy media often ignore."
"Banning TikTok in this way sets a dangerous precedent that could pave the way to future government interventions against online speech," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular