Latest news with #Socia
Fox News
03-04-2025
- Business
- Fox News
SEN BERNIE SANDERS: We have a government of billionaires, by billionaires and for billionaires
All of us owe Donald Trump and Elon Musk a deep debt of gratitude. For a very long time the big money interests, under Democratic and Republican administrations, have dominated our government and our politics. They did it through their campaign contributions, the work of their corporate lobbyists and the extravagant dinners where the rich and the powerful plotted their strategies. Much of their work was done quietly and out of public scrutiny. They had the power. They just didn't advertise it. Not anymore. Donald Trump invited the three wealthiest people in the country, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to sit right behind him at his inauguration. And behind them were 13 other billionaires who Trump had nominated to run major government agencies. In other words, the power of big money was no longer something to be kept secret. Trump was showing the entire world that the billionaire class was running our government. It was there for all to see. But it's not just Trump whom we should applaud for his openness. It's Elon Musk. Ever since the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, billionaires and their super-PACs in both political parties have been controlling our political process and buying and selling politicians. But no one has been as transparent about that as Musk. He donated over $270 million to Trump's campaign, and was rewarded by becoming the most powerful person in the government. Nothing complicated about that. You pay for what you get. Further, he has made it clear that any member of Congress who votes against the Trump-Musk agenda will be opposed by him and his unlimited financial resources. Nothing subtle about that either. Money talks. You do as I say or my money ends your political career. So, what does it all mean? What are the implications of having a government run by the billionaire class? There are those who believe that Mr. Musk and the other billionaires in Trump's Cabinet, smart, hard-working and successful business people, are sacrificing their time and energy to make the government more efficient and effective – and that we should be very grateful for their efforts. I don't agree. Let's take a hard look at what's now happening all around us and see if "efficiency" is the major goal of these billionaires. A good place to begin is with Social Security, the most popular and successful government program in American history. For nearly 90 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do – pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American on time and without delay. Last year, it kept over 27 million Americans out of poverty. And yet today the Trump administration and Elon Musk have been launching an all-out and unprecedented attack on Social Security. They are eliminating the ability of seniors and the disabled to apply for benefits over the phone, shutting down Social Security field offices throughout the country and planning to lay off up to half of Social Security's staff. These disastrous cuts are not making Social Security more efficient or reducing fraud. They are doing the exact opposite. Since Trump has been in office, Social Security's website crashed four times in a recent 10-day period. Lines at Social Security field offices that remain open are getting longer and it's increasingly difficult for seniors and the disabled to talk to a live human being on Social Security's 1-800 number. During his State of the Union, President Trump falsely suggested that "millions and millions" of Social Security checks are going out to people between the ages of 140 and 360. Not true. It is widely acknowledged, even by Trump's own nominee to lead the Social Security Administration, that well over 99% of Social Security checks are going out to people who earned those one who is 150 or 200 or 300 years old is receiving Social Security benefits. Several weeks ago, Mr. Musk falsely claimed that Social Security is "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time." Really? This is a system that has been in effect since 1935 and has never once failed to provide benefits to those who have earned them. Some Ponzi scheme! And it's not just Social Security that the Trump administration is attacking. They are also cutting back on the needs of our nation's veterans, the men and women who put their lives on the line defending our country. At a time when the VA is facing a shortage of many thousands of doctors, nurses and other medical workers, President Trump is making a bad situation even worse by proposing to fire 83,000 employees at the VA. This will undoubtedly mean that the quality of healthcare provided there will decline and veterans will have to wait longer for the benefits they earned. That's not just Bernie Sanders talking. That's what the VFW and other veterans organizations are saying. Can we make VA healthcare more efficient? Absolutely. But arbitrarily firing 83,000 employees is not the way to do it. What else is our billionaire-led government in the process of doing? As we speak, President Trump, Mr. Musk and Republicans in Congress are laying the groundwork to pass legislation that would provide huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the country paid for by massive cuts to healthcare, education, nutrition, housing and other programs that working families and the most vulnerable rely on. It has been estimated that the legislation the Republicans are writing would provide a $1.1 trillion tax break to the top 1%. Another study found that if all of Trump's so-called "America First" policies are enacted, including his tariffs, the bottom 95% of Americans will see their taxes go up, while the top 5% will see their taxes go down. Way down. And what is the largest cut they are considering? It would be an up to $880 billion cut to Medicaid – a program that provides healthcare to tens of millions of children, two out of every three seniors in nursing homes, and 43% of the revenue for community health centers that deliver primary care to over 32 million Americans. A cut of this size would devastate our already broken healthcare system and increase healthcare costs for millions of Americans. It is no secret that our country is deeply divided politically. In my view, however, there are very few people, whether they are conservative, progressive or moderate, who think that we should give tax breaks to billionaires and cut back on Medicaid, education and food for hungry children. There are very few people who think we should take a chainsaw to Social Security and the VA – and threaten the well-being of our seniors and veterans. The American people want a government and an economy that works for all, not just the wealthy few. It's about time Congress and the president listened to them.
USA Today
01-04-2025
- Business
- USA Today
An outdated Social Security rule that desperately needs to change
An outdated Social Security rule that desperately needs to change Show Caption Hide Caption Social Security delays rule blocking access for vulnerable Americans The Social Security Administration reversed its decision on in-person identity checks, deciding to allow phone applications amid criticism and office closures. Straight Arrow News The federal government doesn't just magically print money and use it to fund Social Security. Rather, the program is financed primarily through payroll tax revenue. When you collect your paycheck and notice a line item for FICA, that's the money you're paying into Social Security. And while you may not enjoy doing that, you probably will enjoy getting to collect a monthly benefit once you retire. But payroll taxes aren't the only revenue stream for Social Security. The program also gets money by taxing benefits. President Trump has stated that he'd like to put an end to taxes on Social Security. But that could cause the program to lose out on critical revenue. So a better approach may be to simply update the rules that determine when those benefits are taxed. The current system is flawed A lot of people think it's unfair that seniors have to pay taxes on their Social Security. In fact, some might call it a form of double taxation, since workers are first paying taxes on their wages and are then being taxed on the retirement benefits they're supposed to get in return. But the fact of the matter is that Social Security needs revenue. So getting rid of taxes on benefits may not be the most prudent thing to do. A more reasonable solution, however, could be to update the income thresholds at which taxes on those benefits apply. The problem is that the aforementioned thresholds were established decades ago and have not been adjusted for inflation — even though Social Security benefits themselves have had almost yearly boosts over the past few decades thanks to automatic cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs. Right now, seniors pay taxes on Social Security benefits once their combined income exceeds $25,000 in the case of individuals, or $32,000 in the case of joint filers. Combined income is calculated based on adjusted gross income, tax-exempt interest income you collect, and 50% of annual Social Security income. But as you can see, these thresholds are very low. The average Social Security recipient today collects about $1,979 a month, or $23,748 per year. When we cut that in half, it amounts to $11,874 in Social Security. An individual who withdraws more than $13,126 from their retirement savings annually would be subject to taxes on their Social Security if they receive the average monthly benefit. Put another way, it's feasible that someone collecting about $24,000 a year in Social Security plus another $13,000 from savings for a total of about $37,000 in actual income would face taxes on their monthly benefits. That hardly seems right. A change needs to be made It may not be reasonable to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits altogether. But it's also not so reasonable to impose taxes on benefits for retirees with modest or minimal incomes. If Social Security benefits are eligible for annual COLAs, then the combined income thresholds should be adjusted for inflation, too. That's really the only fair way to go about things. Of course, lawmakers have their hands full on the Social Security front trying to prevent benefit cuts. So they may not be too eager to mess with the combined income thresholds anytime soon. But it's very much an outdated rule that sorely needs an update. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $ 22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
