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 gainedmore 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 Postreported 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," Semaforreported 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
Most Popular