Speaker Mike Johnson says congressional members are paid peanuts, need to trade stocks to support their families
House Speaker Mike Johnson says members of Congress should be allowed to trade stocks so they can support their families. He said this while talking to the press on Wednesday.
Johnson explained that Congress salaries haven't increased since 2009. He added that, after adjusting for inflation, members make 31% less now than in 2009.
He warned that if this keeps going, "less qualified people" will want to run for Congress because it's a big sacrifice with not enough money.
Continue to video
5
5
Next
Stay
Playback speed
1x Normal
Back
0.25x
0.5x
1x Normal
1.5x
2x
5
5
/
Skip
Ads by
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Play War Thunder now for free
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
Johnson said, "At least let them, like, engage in some stock trading so that they can continue to take care of their family."
This comes at a time when stock trading by Congress members is being closely looked at again. The reason is Donald Trump's announcement of big tariffs on global trade partners.
Live Events
These tariffs were later changed and the stock market reacted strongly to those changes. Some people noticed strange trading activity like big spikes in NASDAQ call volume on April 9, just minutes before Trump paused tariffs for some countries.
Because of this, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is asking for an investigation into possible insider trading.
Ocasio-Cortez posted on social media saying, "We're about to learn a few things," as Congress members must submit financial disclosures by May 15.
A website called Capitol Trades, which tracks what Congress members are trading, found some surprising info.
For example, Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA), who wants to ban congressional stock trading, has already made over $5.6 million through 490 trades since he got elected in November.
Johnson also said people need to make a "reasonable decision" with their family about whether they can afford to live in both Washington and their home state, and do everything the job needs.
FAQs
Q1. What did Mike Johnson say about Congress salaries?
He said they haven't increased since 2009 and are worth less now.
Q2. Why are people talking about insider trading in Congress now?
Some stocks moved right before news about tariffs came out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
How John Matthai became a leading light of economic policy in independent India
The biographer is a bit like the cat burglar, stealthily climbing up the scaffolding of a person's life, breaking in, surveying the assortment of riches and then leaving with only a few select, precious elements. This sounds easier on paper than in practice. The biographer starts his or her undertaking with an inherent handicap, given the limited access to a subject's life (especially if the subject is long deceased), and is forced to temper vaulting ambition with discretion. It is in the choice of things the author focuses on—the life lived and the circumstances surrounding that life—that determines what makes for a good biography. What finally makes a biography truly stand out is the craft of storytelling, transforming the tedium of chronology into a compelling narrative. Bakhtiar K. Dadabhoy's biography of John Matthai, Honest John, is an object study of how an author has to perform an intricate balancing act between the different elements of a subject's life: unspooling the various milestones, his professional progression, the contexts (economic, social and political) defining his professional choices and, finally, how the interplay between the subject's personal events, or emotional growth, determine some life choices or professional achievements. John Matthai is, admittedly, an interesting choice—independent India's first railways minister and its second finance minister—though charting his life holds myriad challenges and Dadabhoy's courageous enterprise manages to score on some counts but comes up empty on many others. Also reads: My mother, the family's memory-keeper Matthai's life became manifestly fascinating by first moving from the private sector to the government, and then becoming a core member of the policy circle that watched over the transition of India from a colony to an independent republic. Matthai had till then shifted from academia to policymaking before settling down at the Tata Group. As a professor of economics at Madras Presidency College, he was nominated to the Madras legislative council in November 1922, affording him first-hand experience in bridging the distance between theory and practice. This brought him to the notice of the Tata Group which pursued him and convinced him to join. Matthai's work on the Bombay Plan—drafted under the imprimatur of J.R.D. Tata and G.D. Birla, among others—had caught the attention of both Congress party leaders as well as the colonial administration. Matthai's graduation into national-level policymaking happened when he was invited to join the interim government in August 1946. It is here that Matthai bumped up against national politics, preparing him for long debates, contentious arguments and partisan broadsides against his policy choices. Initially approached for the finance portfolio, the political exigency of having to accommodate Muslim League's Liaquat Ali Khan forced Matthai to console himself with the industries and supply portfolio. From here to railway minister during independence, which literally had to transport the horrors of Partition across borders, and finance minister thereafter, Dadabhoy's biography is like a luxury train, affording readers a fleeting view of modern India's economic history as it passes by. Dadabhoy diligently excavates official memoranda, policy briefs, letters, Parliament records and debates to provide a glimpse of how a newly-formed republic, recovering from decades of surplus extraction while grappling with widespread poverty and the after-effects of a devastating communal carnage, was trying to craft a sustainable and equitable policy architecture. Statements from leaders with contesting views provide an interesting dynamic, showcasing some of the moral and ethical dilemmas in constructing a democratic, empathetic and secular republic from scratch. Matthai's biography as a vehicle provides an excellent vantage view. But herein lies the nub. There is a lot going on outside that is covered meticulously and, yet, the tumult and turmoil occurring inside the vehicle goes completely undocumented. This is a large, noticeable gap; Dadabhoy has fastidiously mounted flesh and bones to a skeletal framework but forgotten to add a soul to the end-product. It is this conspicuous omission that robs the biography of meaning. Writing about the art of writing biographies, specifically Lytton Strachey's biography of Queen Victoria, author Virginia Woolf had commented: 'Could not biography produce something of the intensity of poetry, something of the excitement of drama, and yet keep the peculiar virtue that belongs to fact—its suggestive reality, its own proper creativeness?" This 'suggestive reality" is perhaps the secret sauce that could have helped Honest John become a compelling narrative, instead of just an interesting read. For example, close to 100 pages are dedicated to tracing the debates, question-and-answers, budgetary allocations after Matthai joins the interim government and later assumes office as railways minister. It is an informative interlude, providing readers a view of India's modern economic history in the making. But, then, readers come away not any wiser about the dramatis personae, specifically John Matthai, scripting this important chapter in India's history. In the preface to American Prometheus, a biography of scientist Robert Oppenheimer, authors Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin confess that, 'It is a deeply personal biography researched and written in the belief that a person's public behaviour and his policy decisions (and in Oppenheimer's case perhaps even his science) are guided by the private experiences of a lifetime." There are multiple instances in Honest John which cry out for some understanding of Matthai's 'private experiences". The first, and most obvious, missing link in the book is the influence of Achamma Matthai. Apart from a perfunctory mention in the book as John Matthai's wife, Achamma deserved some more exposure. She was one of the early female graduates in India, having graduated with a bachelor of arts degree from St John's Diocesan College, Kolkata, in 1920. The relationship between Achamma and John needed to be explored in more granular detail and not the boilerplate statement, 'It proved to be a happy marriage". Achamma's influence on John Matthai's career trajectory, his professional choices and his moral journey looms over the book like some nebulous spirit, palpable yet undefined. This becomes evident in March 1944, when both John and Achamma are distraught after their daughter Valsa dies under mysterious circumstances in the US. This is soon after the Bombay Plan is announced and two years before Matthai resigns from the Tatas to join the interim government. The interim period is intensely important but Dadabhoy provides little for us to understand Matthai's state of mind, how he manages to tackle the demons or how the tragedy shaped his personality thereafter. In the foreword to the book, Matthai's daughter-in-law Syloo (married to Ravi Matthai) describes the man: 'Daddy was seen as being a formidable person, a man with a serious demeanour and an eminence which many thought precluded intimacy or even small liberties. But, at home, he was an entirely different person." In other words, Matthai, like everybody else, was human with the usual flaws and frailties. Dadabhoy provides a brief glimpse of the man's faultlines by recounting the episode where Matthai seeks Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's intervention after Matthai's son reportedly runs over and kills a pedestrian in Allahabad. This is the only instance when readers catch sight of the great man's feet of clay; Dadabhoy's hands may have been forced here by an earlier book which first recounted the incident. But barring this single incident, there is scarce little to sketch out the man's personality. This shortcoming is perhaps born out of necessity. While Parliamentary records and inter-ministerial archives have become much more accessible, we do not know if Dadabhoy had similar luck with John Matthai's personal documents and letters. Also, to be fair to Dadabhoy, many of the people who knew Matthai personally have all passed on, adding another layer of insurmountable constraints. This biography, therefore, apart from being a valuable document for understanding how some of India's policy contours unfolded in the first decade after independence, adds little to the mystique of John Matthai as one of India's leading post-independent policy architects. The author is a senior journalist and author of Slip, Stitch and Stumble: The Untold Story of India's Financial Sector Reforms. He posts @rajrishisinghal 'Honest John: A Life of John Matthai': By Bakhtiar K. Dadabhoy, Penguin Random House India, 396 pages, ₹999 Also reads: India's growth and urban planning: On different planets
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's ambition collides with law on sending migrants to dangerous countries
As the Trump administration ships migrants to countries around the world, it is abandoning a long-standing US policy of not sending people to places where they would be at risk of torture and other persecution. The principle emerged in international human rights law after World War II and is also embedded in US domestic law. It is called "non-refoulement," derived from a French word for return. The issue came into sharp relief in the past month as the Trump administration has tried to deport migrants with criminal records to Libya and South Sudan, countries considered so dangerous that they are on the State Department 's "do not travel" list. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.68 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo "What the US is doing runs afoul of the bedrock prohibition in US and international law of non-refoulement," said Robert K. Goldman, faculty director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University's law school. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) In a recent affidavit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the Trump administration's efforts to send migrants to those two countries as part of a diplomatic push to improve relations. He acknowledged that the Libyan capital, Tripoli, was wracked by violence and instability. Live Events You Might Also Like: Trump administration proposes $1,000 fast-track fee for US tourist visas: memo To critics of the administration, the sworn statement shows that the United States is no longer considering whether a deportee is more likely than not to be at risk of abuse through repatriation or transfer to a third country. State Department employees were also recently told to stop noting in annual human rights reports whether a nation had violated its obligations not to send anyone "to a country where they would face torture or persecution." The State Department said in a statement that it dropped that requirement to focus the reports on "human rights issues themselves rather than a laundry list of politically biased demands and assertions." "Enforcing US immigration law, including removing those without a legal basis to remain in the United States, is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting Americans," the statement said. You Might Also Like: Trump's ban on Harvard international students blocked by US judge A judge blocked the transfer of migrants to South Sudan, which is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the men were being held at a US military outpost in Djibouti pending more court action. The Trump administration is also in a showdown in another court over its transfer of Venezuelan deportees described as dangerous gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. "If they were sending them to Sweden, that would be a different thing than sending them to South Sudan, which is one of the most dangerous places on the planet," said Michael H. Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University's Stern School of Business. Posner, who was the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 2009 to 2013, said the United States could send someone from Cuba or Venezuela to another country if it had been determined at a hearing that the place was safe. "We should not be deporting people to third countries where they have no connections and where their lives will be in serious jeopardy," he said. You Might Also Like: Trump travel ban: Why is Trump banning millions from entering the US again? The White House likens its crackdown on illegal migration to combating a national security threat from a hostile enemy. It has pressed military troops into service at the southwestern border and at a small detention operation for migrants at Guantánamo Bay. But even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States abided by its non-refoulement obligation for prisoners it was holding at Guantánamo Bay, during a period when it flouted international law by torturing other detainees in secret overseas prisons called black sites. In 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell concluded that the United States would not repatriate Chinese citizens from the Uyghur Muslim minority who had been rounded up in the war against terrorism in 2001 and held at the military base at Guantánamo. The United States believed that the men would be at risk if they were sent to China. Eventually, in 2013, the State Department found other countries to take in all of the Uyghurs. In the past, State Department officials have essentially asked two questions to determine where a detainee could be sent: Would the destination be safe for the individual? Would the United States and its allies be safe if the person was sent there? US officials had to assess whether the receiving country could monitor the activities of the detainees to prevent them from endangering the United States or an ally. Officials were also required to assess whether a deportee would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment. The United States adopted the same approach to its efforts to send home Islamic State group members or their relatives who were being housed in camps in northern Syria. "Consistent with both long-standing policy and its legal obligations, the US government cannot send people to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be mistreated," said Ian Moss, a lawyer and a former senior counterterrorism official at the State Department. In his affidavit, Rubio accused the courts that were reviewing deportation challenges of undermining US foreign policy. He also said that plans to announce "expanded activities of a US energy company in Libya" had been postponed. Rubio did not mention whether any diplomatic agreements surrounding the proposed resettlement included guarantees about how the migrants would be treated. "If these individuals are as dangerous as the administration represents them to be," Moss said, "sending them to a conflict area or country where there is a lack of capacity to manage them undermines the national security justification," Moss said. The State Department statement referred questions about "the removals process, including screening for credible or reasonable fear," to the Department of Homeland Security . The eight men who were to be sent to South Sudan were at a holding site in Texas when they were informed of their destination. An immigration division official, Garrett J. Ripa, said in a sworn statement May 23 that none of the men declared himself afraid to go. Court records showed that an immigration officer gave the men a form that listed their intended place of deportation. None signed the document. "By not signing, people are protesting being sent to a third country in the only way they know how," said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants in the case. Administration officials had previously planned to deport one of the men to Libya, which has been so unstable that Congress has since 2015 not allowed detainees who are cleared for release from Guantánamo Bay to be sent there.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Indian diaspora to benefit as Canada proposes expansion of citizenship by descent
In a significant move expected to benefit the Indian diaspora and other immigrant communities, the Canadian government has introduced a new bill to remove the existing limit on citizenship by descent. The legislation, titled Bill C-3, was presented in Parliament on Thursday by Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab, as per a report by Lubna Kably in the Times of India. The current rule, introduced in 2009, restricts Canadian citizenship by descent to only the first generation born outside Canada. This means that a Canadian citizen who was themselves born outside Canada could not pass on their citizenship to a child born abroad. Similarly, they could not apply for direct citizenship for a child adopted overseas. The proposed bill aims to change this. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ( IRCC ), 'As a result of the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for individuals born abroad, most Canadian citizens who are citizens by descent cannot pass on citizenship to their child born or adopted outside Canada. The current first-generation limit to citizenship no longer reflects how Canadian families live today—here at home and around the world—and the values that define our country.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Infertile Man Visits Orphanage And Hears, 'Hi Daddy.' Then He Realizes His Late Wife's Cruel Lies Crowdy Fan Undo As per Lubna's report in TOI, the issue has drawn legal scrutiny in recent years. In January 2024, a Canadian court ruled the first-generation limit unconstitutional. The government chose not to appeal the ruling. Although similar legislation was proposed in March 2024 by then-Immigration Minister Marc Miller, it did not pass, prompting its reintroduction this week. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) If passed, Bill C-3 would automatically grant citizenship to individuals who would have been eligible if not for the earlier restrictions. It also proposes a new system under which Canadian parents born abroad can pass on citizenship to their foreign-born children—provided the parent has lived in Canada for at least 1,095 days (or three years) before the child's birth or adoption. Live Events You Might Also Like: Canada's new bill to grant citizenship to thousands of people Ken Nickel-Lane, managing director of an immigration services firm, said to The Times of India, 'While Bill C-3 certainly addresses and rectifies a fault, or faults in the current Citizenship Act which certainly is warranted and just, it may face challenges given current public opinion towards immigration.' He added that the bill might put pressure on immigration quotas, potentially affecting temporary foreign workers critical to infrastructure and housing development. The IRCC has confirmed that, 'If the bill passes both Houses of Parliament and receives Royal Assent, we will work as quickly as possible to bring the changes into effect.' For many Indian-origin Canadians with children or adopted children born outside Canada, the bill—if passed—will mark a major shift in access to citizenship and legal status. You Might Also Like: Canada's first Express Entry draw under new Immigration Minister invites 277 applications
