Treasury installs ally of Musk's DOGE as head of payment system
The Treasury Department will make an ally of billionaire Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service the head of the department that oversees the nation's powerful payment systems after ousting the career civil servant who previously held the post, according to two people with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private deliberations.
Tom Krause, a Silicon Valley executive with ties to DOGE, will become the financial assistant secretary of the Treasury Department, the people said. He replaces David A. Lebryk, who resigned after clashing with Krause over demands to stop payments on foreign aid - a measure Lebryk resisted as illegal.
Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post.
Krause's position will give him control over the Treasury Department system responsible for disbursing more than $5 trillion in annual payments, including for Social Security, Medicare, tax refunds and thousands of other measures. Musk has demanded on social media that Treasury unilaterally stop sending these payments, accusing the department's career staff of breaking the law.
On Thursday, the White House said the second DOGE staffer assigned to Treasury - 25-year-old Marko Elez - would be stepping down after the Wall Street Journal surfaced his racist social media posts.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has thus far sought to downplay the DOGE staffers' work at the Treasury Department. He has insisted that Krause and Elez only had 'read-only' access to the payments system - a measure also mandated by a federal court order.
'When you say the DOGE team, these are Treasury employees, two Treasury employees, one of whom I personally interviewed in his final round,' Bessent told Bloomberg.
The decision to install Krause as assistant secretary is sure to inflame tensions within the ranks of the department, which has been livid over the departure of Lebryk, a lifelong career civil servant.
Related Content
New attorney general's orders include dissolving teams focused on foreign influence
Trump, Musk wage two-front war as donor does president's 'dirty work'
His family gave it all to ice skating. A trip for the sport took it all away.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Eric Adams gets big win from court in retired NYC worker health care battle — but most of his rivals vow to kill it anyway
Mayor Eric Adams scored a massive legal win in the controversial battle to move retired city workers to higher cost health-care plans — but nearly all the candidates running to replace him as mayor are already planning to stop the move in its tracks. The Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the city could shift retirees to Medicare Advantage plans – a private healthcare program that utilizes Medicare subsidies in lieu of traditional Medicare and supplements – after years of fighting by retiree advocacy groups. The ruling found that retirees who sued over the change had insufficiently argued that adopting the advantage plans would lead to worsened care and that assurances that the city would keep them on Medicare plans wasn't legally enforceable. Advertisement 3 Mayoral candidates running against Adams, who is running for re-election as an independent, don't want to see the health care proposal get passed. Getty Images Adams' term is up at year's end and he dropped out of a Democratic Party primary that is set for next week. Adams is now running as an independent in a longshot bid, though the Democratic Party torchbearer would be far and away the favorite to win election in the deeply blue city. Advertisement Mayoral hopefuls Comptroller Brad Lander and frontrunner Andrew Cuomo have both publicly opposed the switch and have specifically called for 30-to-60 day grace periods for families to seek other insurance after the death of a retiree and expediting the reimbursements process, as part of their pledge to retiree groups. Every other candidate – with the exception of independent Jim Walden – also oppose the switch, according to a Citizen Budget Commission questionnaire. 3 The Court of Appeals granted Mayor Eric Adams a major victory as the city can shift retired city workers to Medicare Advantage plans. C Davids/ – While surging socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani recently opposed the plan on his campaign website, a source with knowledge told The Post that he didn't sign a pledge to support the retirees nor did he go to the debate hosted by the advocacy group New York City Public Service Retirees. Advertisement The source continued to say that this was in order to prevent losing an endorsement from the public service union DC37, which supports the switch to Medicare advantage plans. The Mamdani campaign pointed to a prior 2022 statement where the Assemblyman opposed switching to Medicare Advantage but declined to comment about allegedly staying tightlipped in an effort to lose support. The ruling even raised the ire of comptroller candidate Justin Brannan. 'Our city should never, ever be screwing retirees. And neither should the courts. No one will ever want to work for New York City again. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam. Enough!' Brannan said. Advertisement 3 Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo and mayoral hopeful Brad Lander both oppose the plan. Paul Martinka Comptroller candidate and current Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine didn't respond to a request for comment but said in a recent debate that he would make a decision on 'the details of the plan in consultation with retirees, with current workers, with labor leaders.' The plan was first introduced by former Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2021, who argued the program would lead to over $600 million in annual savings by utilizing federal subsidies. The mayor's office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds Are on Track to Run Out in Less Than a Decade. Here's What to Know
Social Security and Medicare are expected to need to cut monthly benefits in less than a decade as the trust funds for both programs are on track to run dry earlier than previously predicted. A report released on Wednesday from the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees pushed up the programs' go-broke dates, meaning the point at which they would not have enough money to fully cover benefits. The worsening projections are in part because of a new law impacting Social Security and increasing health care costs, according to the report. Here's what to know about the approaching funding cliffs. How long will Social Security stay solvent? The go-broke date for Social Security's trust funds was pushed up to 2034, from last year's estimate of 2035. The funds cover old age and disability recipients. The program covers more than 60 million people in the U.S. What about Medicare? Last year's report set the go-broke date for Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund as 2036. But the latest report pushed up that date to 2033. Medicare is a federal health insurance program that offers coverage for people 65 and older, as well as people with certain disabilities. More than 68 million people in the U.S. are enrolled in the program. The hospital insurance trust fund pays for Medicare Part A, which covers care provided in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, as well as some in-home care. It also helps pay for hospice care. Why have the go-broke dates moved up? The report largely attributes the Social Security go-broke date being pushed up to a new law, the Social Security Fairness Act, which took effect in January. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions of the Social Security Act, which 'increased projected Social Security benefit levels for some workers' and affected the go-broke date for Social Security's trust funds, according to the report. Last year's expenses for Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund were also greater than initially anticipated, according to the report, which contributed to the go-broke date for the program being pushed up. What happens after the go-broke dates? The funds hitting their go-broke dates doesn't mean that there won't be any funds to cover any benefits after that point. After 2034, Social Security would only have enough funds to cover 81% of benefits. After 2033, Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund would only be able to pay 89% of costs.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Senate proposes big change to Social Security, SALT income tax deduction
The Senate Finance Committee this week unveiled its proposed tax provisions for inclusion in the budget reconciliation bill currently under consideration in Congress. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in May. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The Senate is now working on its own version, which must meet specific requirements to qualify for reconciliation. This would allow it to bypass the filibuster and pass with a simple majority vote, according to a report by the Journal of Accountancy. The goal? Passage by July 4. Among the provisions for individuals in the Senate version of the bill that are different from the House version, several stand out. Harold Mendoza The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would permanently establish the expanded standard deduction amounts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Starting in tax year 2026, the standard deduction would be set at $16,000 for single filers, $24,000 for heads of household, and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly, with future adjustments for inflation. Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock The Senate proposal also includes a temporary tax break for older Americans: a $6,000 deduction for individuals age 65 and older. The House version offered only a $4,000 "senior bonus" deduction. The Senate's senior deduction would begin to phase out at a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers, and would apply from 2025 through 2028. Tax expert Ted Sarenski notes that whether the additional senior deduction is $4,000 or $6,000, for joint filers with both spouses over 65, this would result in a standard deduction of $38,000 or $42,000 – amounts that exceed what the majority of seniors who currently itemize could reach, especially with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction capped at $10,000. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement However, Sarenski warns of potential challenges ahead: "The bigger issue: come 2028 when this bonus is set to disappear, there will be tremendous squawking about a $8,000 or $12,000 drop in the standard deduction like we see now with proposed Medicaid cutbacks today which are merely trying to put Medicaid back where it was before COVID." Under current law, the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) is capped at $10,000. The original House bill proposed raising that cap to $30,000, but a manager's amendment increased it further – to $40,000 per household ($20,000 for married individuals filing separately), effective in 2025. Related: SALT income tax deduction takes critical step forward The Senate version, by contrast, would keep the SALT deduction cap at $10,000 and make that limit permanent. It also includes provisions to prevent taxpayers from using workaround strategies to bypass the cap. However, this provision remains a point of negotiation between the chambers. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), have signaled that the $10,000 cap is a negotiating position rather than a final offer, suggesting a compromise could land somewhere between the House and Senate proposals. Still, members of the House SALT Caucus, including Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), are holding firm on the $40,000 cap. Lawler called the Senate proposal "DEAD ON ARRIVAL" and reiterated, "$40,000 is the deal – I will not accept a penny less." Sarenski emphasized that the SALT provision "is a concern for residents of high tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, etc." He anticipates that if the Senate moves to keep the cap at $10,000, "it may not pass the House," and expects "there will be a compromise somewhere in the middle of those two figures." More Social Security: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on 401(k)s, Social SecurityDave Ramsey's blunt advice regarding Social Security and 401(k)sSuze Orman addresses growing Social Security problem Harold Eisenberg, the founder and CEO of WealthTec, takes a more critical view of the overall legislation, describing the One Big Beautiful Bill as "just not sound tax policy on many levels" with "too much politics in this proposed legislation." He characterizes the temporary senior tax break as "gimmicky," though notes that this very quality "means some form of it likely passes." On the SALT deduction, Eisenberg argues that the limitation "is targeted primarily at taxpayers in Blue states, so on its face is discriminatory." The prospects for these tax changes remain uncertain, with the legislative path forward depending heavily on House dynamics. "The chances of any of these changes rests with the house," said Sarenski. "The senators can pass whatever they agree on. The house is the issue with Republicans not voting in tandem." Tax professional George Papadopoulos takes a more cautious approach to predicting outcomes, noting his long experience with the legislative process: "I have been around for a while and long enough to not really get into pending legislation matters. I know in general what is on the table and stay away from guessing what will actually be signed into law. When we actually have a law then it is time to get into analyzing it." Related: These are the most tax-friendly states if you work in retirement Despite his general reluctance to speculate, Papadopoulos does offer some measured predictions based on political realities. He expects the $10,000 SALT deduction cap will increase "but not more than doubling," suggesting a final figure well below the House's proposed $40,000 limit. He also anticipates "some form of senior deduction" will ultimately be included, driven by the political influence of older voters as "that voting block is so large." However, he expects the income thresholds for phasing out the senior deduction may be set higher than currently proposed. Eisenberg, despite his self-described role as a "federal tax policy cynic," also weighs in on the political dynamics. He believes that with the narrow House Republican majority, "keeping the SALT limitation at $10K would likely kill the bill in the house" because "too many Republicans in 'swing districts' in the Blue states are depending on raising that cap." Reflecting on the complex nature of tax legislation, Papadopoulos said: "Whoever said negotiating tax legislation is like making sausage was right." Got questions about retirement, email What is a pledged asset line? The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
