Federal cuts, tax breaks for wealthy condemned at rally
SCRANTON — From a former service member to a retiree to a city council candidate, about 75 people gathered along Courthouse Square on Tuesday afternoon to oppose potential budget cuts to Medicaid, Social Security and the Department of Veterans Affairs and call for billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes.
During a Tax Day rally hosted by Action Together NEPA – a grassroots progressive organization dedicated to community action and political advocacy – participants clamored for the ousting of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk – a White House adviser – and the protection of social services.
'Hands off Medicaid, hands off SNAP,' some chanted. 'Fund our families, not fat cats,' others exclaimed.
Action Together NEPA hosted similar rallies Tuesday in Wilkes-Barre, Bethlehem and Tunkhannock.
Dave Mattern, 68, of Clarks Summit, who worked as a drafter among other occupations before retiring, joined the rally to fight against potential tax cuts for billionaires and expressed concerns about the future of the social security trust fund.
'The fear is just running out of money,' he said. 'Especially with the way things are going, it's going to be tight enough without losing everything.'
Aaron Newhart of Falls Twp. held a 'Veterans Against Trump' flag throughout the rally to show opposition to proposed cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Newhart, 51, who served four years each in the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, called out the Trump administration for their actions toward members of the country's armed forces – including planned cuts to the VA.
'Just the way he's treating the veterans, it's very hurtful,' Newhart said. 'There are a lot of veterans out there who wouldn't get the care they need. How can you do cutbacks and have veterans care? They're doing indiscriminate cuts to VA health care. It's absolutely crazy. Also, he's planning on cutting Medicaid and Social Security – they need to stay away from it – he's hurting the American people.'
*
Protesters gather for the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
*
Protesters gather for the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
*
Protesters gather for the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
*
Aaron Newhart, Falls Twp., holds a 'Veterans Against Trump' flag during the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. The Army and Marines vet came out because he's concerned about the budget cuts the federal government is making. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
*
Protesters gather for the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
*
Mary Batty, Dalton, joins in a chant with fellow protesters during the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
Show Caption
1 of 6
Protesters gather for the Families Over Billionaires Tax Day Rally at the Lackawanna Courthouse Square in Scranton on Tuesday, April 15, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
Expand
Frankie Malacaria, 33, of South Scranton, a Democratic candidate for City Council, noted federal cuts hit close to home.
'I know many, many people in this community are affected,' he said. 'We're a low income, working class community. My family is on LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance program) and we were thankfully able to get on it last week. Then, literally two days after, the Trump administration decided to cut the entire staff in Health and Human Services that handles the distribution of LIHEAP funding. Millions of people across the country rely on LIHEAP in order to be able to heat their homes in the winter. Unfortunately, without this funding, it may not be here next year.'
Karen Gray, 63, made the trip to Scranton from Tobyhanna Twp. to show her overall disapproval of the Trump administration.
'My signs are not big enough to hold everything I'm against that he's doing,' she said. 'It feels like our country's not the same. Our democracy is gone … it's upsetting to me.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Americans flunk retirement literacy quiz. Here's why it matters.
Most American adults are stumped by basic retirement-related questions. That's according to a new report from the TIAA Institute and the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center at the George Washington University School of Business. Most quiz respondents bombed, big-time, when posed six questions related to Social Security benefits, Medicare coverage, employment-based retirement savings, ensuring lifetime income, and life expectancy in retirement. On average, they answered two out of six questions correctly. But is this surprising? 'Decisions concerning Social Security and Medicare are not that simple and require people to collect quite a bit of information to develop a plan,' said Annamaria Lusardi, co-author of the report and a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). 'For many people, Social Security and Medicare are not enough, and this is why it is alarming to see that the knowledge of how these institutions work is so limited.' By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Curious about your retirement know-how? Take the abbreviated quiz below. Many Americans expect Medicare, for example, will cover all of their expenses. 'It's a shock to them that it doesn't,' Surya Kolluri, head of the TIAA Institute, told Yahoo Finance. 'And then it's a further surprise that if their income is high, they'll pay higher premiums for Medicare Part B and prescription drug benefits.' Why financial literacy matters: People who have a grip on retirement concepts are more likely to have a better shot at not outliving their money. It's no wonder many of us fall short. Only about 28 states have financial literacy requirements for high school students to graduate. It's typically a one-semester course covering topics like budgeting, saving, and managing debt. The real trouble begins when someone starts a job. Waiting to start a retirement savings account even for a year or so has lifelong consequences in terms of saving for retirement. Can you say compounding? 'One of the places that could make an impact is if employers were to offer this education when young adults join the company,' Kolluri said. 'It's a perfect time." It's good to know how many years you have to save for. Only a third of Americans knew that, on average, in the US a 65-year-old man will live about 19 more years to age 84 and a 65-year-old woman about 22 more years to age 87, according to the report. Learn more: How much should I have saved by 50? Having a bead on how many years you might potentially need to finance after you step away from the workforce is key, Michael Finke, professor of wealth management and director of the Granum Center for Financial Security at The American College of Financial Services, told Yahoo Finance. 'Those who understand average longevity are 54% more likely to plan for spending into their 90s and delay tapping Social Security checks,' Finke, who is the co-author of a new study focused on financial planning for longevity, said. 'Those who had an unrealistically low expectation of retirement longevity were far more likely to indicate that they plan to claim Social Security income benefits before the age of 65,' he added. Read more: What is the retirement age for Social Security, 401(k), and IRA withdrawals? 'The main hurdle for people to answer these questions correctly is they haven't sat down and thought about what they'll need in retirement and what the situation might look like,' Jeremy Burke, a senior economist at the University of Southern California's Center for Economic and Social Research, told Yahoo Finance. 'As people get closer to retirement, they tend to pay a little more attention to it. It's a big ask for a lot of folks to try to think about in 30 years what their financial situation's going to look like.' He's spot on. I certainly didn't give it a passing thought and have been open about cashing out an employer plan when I was 30, paying the penalty and tax, and never looking back. That is until now, when I muse about what that might be worth today. Generally, people become more knowledgeable about finances as it becomes more germane. 'Decisions like whether I should put money away in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) become relevant when you have enough money to set aside in an IRA, or when you get your first job and are making the decision about how much to save in a 401(k),' Finke said. 'It only becomes salient when we're forced to see the relevancy of that choice in our own lives.' Learn more: What is a 401(k)? A guide to the rules and how it works. Then, too, for the most part many people save for retirement these days in default investments like target-date funds which don't require any knowledge of the financial wizardry behind them. Nearly 7 in 10 of workers save in automatic investments in their employer-provided accounts that don't require that they do anything, Finke said. 'In essence, when it comes to retirement savings, we've bubble wrapped the worker experience when it comes to saving.' That is a good thing in many ways, but sticky stuff comes when they invest outside of their 401(k), and are prone to making investment mistakes because they're not as knowledgeable as they need to be, he tripping point in retirement planning is that when people think about whether they have saved enough for retirement it's all about focusing on their number, Finke said. 'That's the total amount of savings that you have in your retirement account, but that number really doesn't mean anything to anybody because it's so difficult to translate the number into a lifestyle.' I agree. Being a 401(k) millionaire sounds like heady stuff, but what does that really mean when you might have three decades of living costs post-retirement? "Simply saying that people are too stupid to make good financial decisions is not the right way to go about helping people make better choices,' Finke said. Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work" and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
an hour ago
The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts. But what, exactly, would be a cut? Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements. 'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol. 'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.' Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public. As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year. Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most. House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid. In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid. Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals. 'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage. Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs. The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month. The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria. The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether. Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation. 'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment. Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate. The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration. While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans. Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right. Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community. For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits. He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals. 'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Dave Ramsey sounds alarm on Social Security, 401(k)s
Americans preparing for retirement often grapple with multiple concerns, primarily centered on achieving financial security and maintaining their preferred lifestyle after leaving the workforce. A significant part of this planning involves estimating potential Social Security benefits and determining how much one can rely on retirement savings and investments, such as 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Dave Ramsey, the radio host and bestselling financial author, shares valuable insight on Social Security and cautions Americans about a key challenge some encounter when striving to contribute as much as they can to employer-sponsored 401(k) plans. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter While Social Security remains an essential source of retirement income, depending on it entirely is not a viable plan for a comfortable lifestyle. Uncertainties surrounding the federal program's long-term viability, adjustments for inflation, and potential benefit reductions due to dwindling trust funds create added financial stress for retirees. Ramsey underscores the fact that postponing Social Security benefits results in higher monthly payments, with the maximum amount accessible to those who wait until age 70. However, he also points out that delaying benefits means fewer overall payments throughout retirement, which could ultimately lead to a lower total payout based on a person's lifespan. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message to Americans on Social Security Health is an important factor in deciding when to claim Social Security, Ramsey notes. Those anticipating significant medical expenses may benefit from taking payments earlier, ensuring essential financial support for themselves and their loved ones. Meanwhile, individuals in good health who expect to rely on Social Security for daily living costs might consider delaying their claim to secure higher monthly benefits. With these considerations in mind, Ramsey provides essential guidance to help Americans navigate the complexities of retirement savings and make informed financial decisions - particularly with regard to 401(k) plans. Because Social Security monthly paychecks are not sufficient to cover the entirety of one's retirement expenses, many Americans make the smart choice of participating in their employer-sponsored 401(k) plans. But Ramsey warns of one instance when one should delay those 401(k) contributions: when a person is attempting to get out of debt. While a person is prioritizing becoming debt-free, Ramsey suggests they stop all retirement savings, even if a 401(k) plan involves an employer match. More on retirement: Jean Chatzky shares major statement about Social SecurityShark Tank's Kevin O'Leary has blunt words on 401(k) plansDave Ramsey strongly cautions U.S. workers on Social Security "This makes a lot of people nervous, and I understand that. I'm a math nerd, and I know that getting a 100-percent match on your contributions is a sweet deal," Ramsey explained in his book "Dave Ramsey's Complete Guide to Money." "That's why I want you to get out of debt as fast as possible, so you can get back to your investments and really do it with style without worrying about debt payments hanging over your head," he added. Related: Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s, IRAs Ramsey advises temporarily pausing 401(k) contributions for about 18 months to focus on eliminating debt. He believes this short-term shift frees up more money for repayment and adds urgency to the process. Once debts are cleared, financial freedom allows for greater savings and investing opportunities, Ramsey explains. While deeper financial struggles may require longer adjustments, he sees this strategy as an effective way to accelerate debt payoff and build long-term stability. Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s Ramsey shares one more warning regarding 401(k)s. "Although I want you to stop contributing to your retirement account temporarily, I do not recommend cashing out your 401(k) or other retirement accounts and using that money to pay off debt," Ramsey wrote. "If you cash out a 401(k) early, you'll lose around 40 percent of your money in penalties and taxes," he added. "That is literally throwing half your money out the window, and it is a horrible, horrible idea." "Don't do it, no matter how tempting it is, unless it is the only thing that will keep you from a bankruptcy or foreclosure." The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
