Public Perception Of Who The Trump Budget Benefits

 

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 30th and June 2nd of a nationwide sample of 1,610 adults (including 1,436 registered voters). The margin of error for both groups is 3.2 points.

Another 406,000 Workers Filed For Unemployment Last Week

 

The Labor Department released its weekly unemployment statistics on Thursday. It showed that another 406,000 workers filed to receive unemployment benefits in the week ending on May 22nd. While that's the lowest number filing since March of 2021, it's still well above the normal level (which would be 100k to 150k less). 

Here is the official Labor Department statement:

In the week ending May 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 406,000, a decrease of 38,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 444,000. This is the lowest level for initial claims since March 14, 2020 when it was 256,000. The 4-week moving average was 458,750, a decrease of 46,000 from the previous week's unrevised average of 504,750. This is the lowest level for this average since March 14, 2020 when it was 225,500.

In Developed Nations, The U.S. Ranks Last In Worker Benefits

The chart above is from CNBC.com, and it's not good news for American workers. While other developed nations have struck a balance between businesses and workers, allowing both to thrive in their economies, the United States has not.

Political leaders in the United States have pursued policies that tilt the economy to favor businesses -- especially large businesses -- to the detriment of workers. Workers are left to do without the benefits given workers in other nations.

The charts below, from zenefits.com, show the outcome of these U.S. failures to protect workers:

Trump's Unemployment Order Won't Work And Isn't Legal

Last Saturday, Donald Trump tried to position himself as the savior of workers in this recession. He did it by signing an executive order, which he said would provide unemployed workers with an additional $400 a week in benefits.

Unfortunately, it was nothing more than political theater -- designed to help him get reelected. The order itself is probably illegal, would not work, and has already been dismissed by governors in both parties.

One might suspect that this would make Trump angry. I doubt it does. He never really intended to help workers. He just wanted to do something that he hoped would make himself look good, and would be able to blame governors when it failed.

Here's part of how Catherine Rampell, in The Washington Post, describes Trump's pathetic bit of theater concerning workers:

Then there’s the unemployment benefit supplement. What. A. Mess.

With passage of the Cares Act pandemic relief in March, Congress created a $600 federal supplement to state unemployment benefits. This was a lifeline to millions of families. The supplement expired July 31, though, because members of Congress couldn’t come to terms on an extension. Republicans insisted the supplement was so generous that it discouraged work. (Five studies find otherwise.)

So Trump decided to supplement unemployment benefits by executive fiat, allegedly providing an additional $400 per week. The administration said it would take $44 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, earmarked for natural disasters, to fund a new $300 weekly payment per worker. But states would get the money only if they kicked in $100 for each worker from their own coffers, on top of whatever benefits they had already been distributing.

States would also have to build an information technology system from scratch to administer this $400, because they cannot legally use their existing unemployment insurance infrastructure to pay out benefits that haven’t been authorized by Congress.

Now, bear in mind that states are broke.

Actually, not just broke; they’re $555 billion in the hole, thanks to lower tax revenues and higher expenses related to covid-19. Nonetheless, they’re being asked to pony up an additional $100 per week per worker, plus spend precious resources on a separate IT system when their existing unemployment IT systems are crumbling. The IT build could take weeks or months, while the $300 federal benefit that this not-yet constructed system would distribute is expected to last only about six weeks.

Additionally, the parallel unemployment benefit system might not survive a legal challenge, given that Trump may not have statutory authority to redirect congressionally appropriated funds this way.

If you were a governor, would you opt into this program under these conditions?

In a TV interview Sunday, the director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, acknowledged that the White House had … not asked states this question. Soon, though, it got an answer: Governors from both parties declared the program administratively unworkable. The bipartisan National Governors Association expressed concern “about the significant administrative burdens and costs this latest action would place on the states” and asked for congressionally appropriated funds instead.

So, Trump and high-level officials kept changing the details, apparently in an attempt to make the plan more appealing to states.

Sometimes the White House said maybe the feds would provide the entire $400 without requiring states to kick in 25 percent. Sometimes aides said other money the states were already spending would count as a sort of artificial 25 percent funding match, meaning each worker would get an additional $300, not the $400 advertised. Sometimes this phony match could be achieved by tallying what each individual worker currently receives from their state; sometimes by what a state spent overall on benefits, across all workers.

By Tuesday evening, at least five contradictory versions of this parallel benefit system had been communicated by various Trump officials, according to a running tally from Georgetown law professor David Super. And if the original design was in a statutory gray area, Super says, the revised versions waiving additional state contributions are “not remotely legal.”

That’s because the 25 percent ($100) state funding match included in Trump’s executive action wasn’t there just for kicks. It was there because it’s required under the law Trump cited as giving him authority to create this benefit program: the Stafford Act. Counting existing state spending on jobless benefits, rather than new spending, to meet the state-match requirement would also violate Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.

Given the whipsawing design of the program, which may not be legal, plus the fact that the Trump administration has already changed the rules midstream for other covid-19 unemployment benefits programs, opting into this would be extremely risky for states.

“It’s not a matter of whether states are willing to sign on the dotted line,” Super told me. “It’s: What are you actually asking me to sign up for?"

Even if no one challenges the policy in court, states might still reasonably fear that the Trump administration would renege on the deal to reimburse them for $300 in weekly benefits, once administration attorneys and budget officials belatedly remember the Stafford Act’s requirements. In which case states might be on the hook for the entire cost of the plussed-up benefits. If a state couldn’t come up with a quarter of this money, footing the whole bill seems impossible.

Meanwhile, the White House is declaring victory, with outside adviser Stephen Moore proclaiming Trump’s toothless, legally dubious actions “a masterstroke.” Premature victory laps on administrative actions are par for the course with this administration, which has lost 90 percent of all legal challenges to its regulatory policies. . . .

But in declaring that he’s solved all these problems, President I-Alone-Can-Fix-It hasn’t hastened advanced legislative negotiations — he’s made a deal less likely to happen. And America’s unemployed will pay the price.

Stimulus Bill Stalled - GOP Doesn't Care About Workers

The Coronavirus continues to rage across the country, preventing a substantial reopening of the economy. This has left millions of Americans out-of-work, and there is little hope of them returning to work until the virus is under control -- something the Trump administration is not even trying to do.

This country is currently in a recession (with the second quarter GDP shrinking by 9.5%). And making matters worse, the enhanced unemployment benefits have run out. This will make the recession even worse as many fall into poverty and face eviction from their homes.

This was foreseeable. The House Democrats passed a stimulus months ago. Sadly, the Republican Senate has not debated or voted on the House bill -- and their intra-party squabbling has prevented them from coming up with a bill of their own (which could be a starting point for negotiations with the Democrats).

Why won't the Republicans act to help American workers and keep the economy from sinking into an even deeper recession. Because they don't care about workers. They are quick to funnel more money to the rich and corporations, but not to help workers (who need help much more than the rich and corporations).

Here is some of what Paul Krugman (winner of the Nobel Prize in economics) says about the GOP intransigence in his New York Times column:

Above all, Republicans seem obsessed with the idea that unemployment benefits are making workers lazy and unwilling to accept jobs.

This would be a bizarre claim even if unemployment benefits really were reducing the incentive to seek work. After all, there are more than 30 million workers receiving benefits, but only five million job openings. No matter how harshly you treat the unemployed, they can’t take jobs that don’t exist.

It’s almost a secondary concern to note that there’s almost no evidence that unemployment benefits are, in fact, discouraging workers from taking jobs. Multiple studies find no significant incentive effect.

And unemployment benefits didn’t prevent the U.S. from adding seven million jobs, most of them for low-wage workers — that is, precisely the workers often receiving more in unemployment than from their normal jobs — during the abortive spring recovery.

By the way, a great majority of economists believe that unemployment benefits have helped sustain the economy as a whole, by supporting consumer spending.

So the attack on unemployment aid is rooted in deep ignorance. But there’s also a strong element of malice.

Republicans have a long history of suggesting that the jobless are moral failures — that they’d rather sit home watching TV than work. And the Trump years have been marked by a relentless assault on programs that help the less fortunate, from Obamacare to food stamps.

One indicator of G.O.P. disingenuousness is the sudden re-emergence of “deficit hawks” claiming that helping the unemployed will add too much to the national debt. I use the scare quotes because as far as I can tell not one of the politicians claiming that we can’t afford to help the unemployed raised any objections to Donald Trump’s $2 trillion tax cut for corporations and the wealthy.

Nor was disdain for the unlucky the only reason the G.O.P. didn’t want to help Americans in need. The recent Vanity Fair report about why we don’t have a national testing strategy fits with a lot of evidence that Republicans spent months believing that Covid-19 was a blue-state problem, not relevant to people they cared about. By the time they realized that the pandemic was exploding in the Sun Belt, it was too late to avoid disaster.

At this point, then, it’s hard to see how we avoid another gratuitous catastrophe. The fecklessness of the Trump administration and its allies means that millions of Americans will soon be in dire financial straits.

Failure To Continue The Unemployment Insurance Increase Would Seriously Hurt The Economy In Every State

There is a very good chance that Congress will refuse to extend the $600 increase in unemployment insurance past the end of this month. The Republicans are whining that the generous unemployment insurance payout makes people refuse to return to work. That is ridiculous. They overlook the fact that if someone refuses to return to the job they had before being laid off, they don't qualify for unemployment benefits. They also overlook that many are not able to return to their jobs because their business is shut down (or no longer exists), and these people depend on the unemployment to pay their rent and buy food (and other necessities).

Finally, they are ignoring one other thing. According to the Economic Policy Institute, failure to continue the unemployment benefits (including the $600 increase) would seriously damage the economy -- the same economy they are trying to save by forcing people back to work in the midst of the pandemic. You can go here to read EPI's excellent analysis of how the economy would be hurt if Republicans block extension of the unemployment benefits.

Voters Disagree With GOP Officials On Unemployment

The chart above is from the Politico / Morning Consult Poll -- done between June 12th and 14th of a national sample of 1,987 registered voters, with a 2 point margin of error.

Republican officials in Washington are dragging their feet on approving another stimulus bill to help those hurt by the Trump recession. They especially don't want to continue the expanded unemployment insurance benefits passed in a previous bill. Those benefits will expire at the end of June, and unless something is done quickly, many people will find themselves in dire trouble.

Republicans were quick to pass a bill that mostly went to businesses and corporations (many of which did not need any help). But now that a new bill helps only ordinary American workers (and has no money for the corporations), the Republicans don't want to pass it. It seems they only have money to help the rich, but not the workers that really need government help.

But the voters disagree with the GOP on this. About 75% of voters say the government should increase help to unemployed workers or at least keep that help at the current level (including 84% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, and 67% of Republicans). Only 13% of voters say those benefits should be decreased.

The Democrats have passed more help for unemployed workers in the House, but the Republican Senate won't vote on the bill. They cling to Trump's lunatic notion that now that corporations have been paid, the economy will miraculously bounce back. It won't. It's going to be a long and slow recovery -- and refusing more help for unemployed workers will just make it longer and slower.

This is one more good reason why the Republicans must be voted out of power in November.

Trump/GOP Ready To Sacrifice Workers On Alter Of Greed

The $2.5 trillion stimulus package passed by Congress was supposed to protect both businesses and workers in this recession. Corporations got a slush fund of $500 billion. Small businesses were supposed to be able to borrow money to keep workers on the payroll and pay other expenses. Most Americans got a $1200 payment. And workers got an enhanced unemployment program.

But it hasn't worked out as expected. The corporations got their money, and many of them were even able to raid the fund for small businesses (leaving those small businesses out in the cold). Now the Trump administration is trying to make sure workers can't get their unemployment insurance.

Trump has urged all governors to reopen the economy, and sadly, most of them are complying -- even though none of the states have met the requirements for safety (for workers or consumers). And to make matters worse, the Trump administration is telling state unemployment agencies to deny unemployment insurance payments to any workers who don't comply with an order to return to work (even though safety measures are not adequate to protect them from being infected with the Coronavirus).

Employers have been asked to report any employee who does not return to work after being offered "suitable work" (although that term has not been defined, and no safeguards for workers are insured).

This shows just who the Republicans and the Trump administration were trying to help with the stimulus bill -- corporations (and their rich owners). They don't care about small businesses, and most of all, they don't care about workers.

They are willing to sacrifice American workers on their alter of greed!

Unemployment Qualifications/Benefits Vary In The States

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They show how unemployment qualifications and benefits vary from state to state. The United States doesn't have a national unemployment system. It has 50 different unemployment systems, with each state determining who can get unemployment benefits, how much they can get, and how long they can get it.

Undocumented Immigrants Benefit The U.S. (Not Burden It)

(Cartoon image is by Lalo Alcaraz at capitalandmain.com.)

Donald Trump continues to demonize immigrants -- especially undocumented immigrants. He is appealing to the racists and xenophobes in his party, and trying to divide Americans by making them fear undocumented immigrants.

He accuses those immigrants of being a criminal danger, of taking jobs away from citizens, and of being a drag on the economy (taking more in benefits than they contribute). These are all LIES!

Study after study has shown that the undocumented immigrants actually obey our laws better than citizens do -- probably because they don't want to draw police attention which might get them deported.

The immigrants do take some jobs, but they are normally low-paying, dangerous, dirty jobs that American citizens don't want. Employers would be hard-pressed to fill many of these jobs with the immigrant workforce.

The crazy part of Trump's immigration idea is to replace these immigrants with other immigrants that are educated and/or skilled. These immigrants would take good jobs away from American citizens.

Do immigrants (especially undocumented immigrant) pose a burden for this country. Not at all. They actually pay taxes, while not qualifying for benefits. Here is how the Bipartisan Policy Center describes it:

How Much do Undocumented Workers Pay in Taxes?

The IRS estimates that undocumented immigrants pay over $9 billion in withheld payroll taxes annually. Undocumented immigrants also help make the Social Security system more solvent, as they pay into the system but are ineligible to collect benefits upon retiring. In 2010, $12 billion more was collected from Social Security payroll taxes of undocumented workers than were paid out in benefits.

Do Undocumented Immigrants Collect Benefits?  

Undocumented immigrants are eligible for very few federal benefits (Table 1). One notable tax benefit that they have traditionally been eligible for is the Child Tax Credit, a partially refundable credit designed to support low-income families based on their dependent children. A report from the Treasury Department estimated that undocumented immigrants received $4.2 billion in refundable child tax credits in 2010, or roughly one-eighth of the total paid.

However, last year’s tax law changed eligibility requirements by making the refundable portion of the child tax credit only available to filers whose dependents have valid Social Security numbers, therefore rendering ITIN filers with undocumented children unable to claim the CTC for those dependents.

Tax Credits (Refundable)	Ineligible for most tax credits; ITIN holders with U.S. children can receive the Child Tax Credit
Pell Grants & Student Loans	Ineligible
Unemployment Insurance	Ineligible
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)	Ineligible
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)	Ineligible
Social Security	Ineligible
Medicaid	Emergency service only
Health Care Premium and Cost-Sharing Assistance	Ineligible
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)	No federal care; some states cover for labor and delivery, prenatal, and postpartum care

All Workers Should Be Thankful For Labor Unions

Mother Jones was just one of hundreds of heroes who fought for the working man and woman in this country. These brave people suffered hardships, were jailed, and many lost their lives in the struggle to give workers a decent life. And they were successful.

The labor unions made jobs safer, more secure, and helped working people to earn a livable wage. It also was instrumental in creating a vibrant middle class in this country. And it wasn't just union members who benefitted. All American workers have benefitted from the union movement.

On this day, when we honor the working men and women in this country, we need to remember that it was the union movement that gave us many of the benefits we normally take for granted -- and we need to fight to make unions strong again. Unions are the only voice workers have in this country.

From Daily Kos, here are some of the things that unions brought us:

36 Reasons Why You Should Thank a Union

Weekends
All Breaks at Work, including your Lunch Breaks
Paid Vacation
FMLA
Sick Leave
Social Security
Minimum Wage
Civil Rights Act/Title VII (Prohibits Employer Discrimination)
8-Hour Work Day
Overtime Pay
Child Labor Laws
Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
40 Hour Work Week
Worker's Compensation (Worker's Comp)
Unemployment Insurance
Pensions
Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations
Employer Health Care Insurance
Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees
Wrongful Termination Laws
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee)
Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS)
Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises)
Sexual Harassment Laws
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
Holiday Pay
Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance
Privacy Rights
Pregnancy and Parental Leave
Military Leave
The Right to Strike
Public Education for Children
Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work)
Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

GOP Poised To Gut Social Security For Millions Of Seniors

Social Security is one of the government programs that has worked as designed. It was to help keep American seniors out of poverty, and it lowered the poverty rate among seniors from 50% before Social Security was passed to a current level of about 10%.

And best of all, it did that without spending a dime of government money. It is wholly funded by a payroll tax taken out of worker wages throughout their working lives. It doesn't add a single penny to the deficit or the national debt.

The Republicans have never liked Social Security. They voted against it when it was proposed, and have been trying to get rid of it ever since. They understand that doing away with it would be very unpopular, since the program is viewed favorably by a huge percentage of the U.S. population. So they are trying to kill it bit by bit now, making the program unworkable so it will die.

The latest lies they are telling is that the program is going bankrupt, and won't be around when younger workers today need it in the future. That's not just a lie -- it's an outrageous and damnable lie!

The program does have some funding problems. While it will be able to send full benefits to recipients for about another 15-20 years, it will only be able to pay about 80% of full benefits after that. Some adjustments need to be made to make sure full benefits can be paid far into the future -- and that could easily be done by raising the cap on income subject to the FICA tax (the payroll tax that funds Social Security).

Currently, only the first $118,000 are taxed -- which means the rich pay a far smaller percentage of their income than working class people do (and even most of the middle class). Raising the cap to $200,000 or $250,000 would fully fund Social Security far into the future -- and it would do so without penalizing the working and middle classes.

But that would mean the wealthy would have to pay a little more in FICA taxes -- and the Republicans are horrified at the thought of taxing the rich eve a little bit. They would rather punish seniors than tax the rich. And that's exactly what they are now planning to do.

U.S. Rep. Sam Johnson (pictured), a Republican from the 3rd District of Texas, has quietly introduced a bill to gut Social Security. His bill would raise the retirement age to 69, which would not be bad for people like him, but would be disastrous for the millions who do physical labor most or all their lives. Those people are unable to work past 66, and cannot afford to wait another three years to get the benefits they paid for with their hard work all of their lives.

Johnson's bill would also cut the benefit paid to the half of Social Security recipients getting the largest monthly benefit. The average monthly benefit is about $1300 ($15,500 a year). Can you imagine cutting benefits for those making only slightly about $1300 a month? Those people are barely staying above the poverty level, and many would be shoved down into poverty.

But the Republicans don't care. They are perfectly willing to throw seniors under the bus (along with workers) to save the rich (their real constituency) from paying another penny in taxes.

The Social Security COLA For 2017 is A Shameful 0.3%

This chart was made using figures from the Social Security Administration (SSA). The green line shows the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for each year from 2000 to 2017. The red line shows the trend in COLA from 2000 to 2017 -- note that it's been decreasing since 2000.

After 2016, when no raise was given at all to Social Security recipients (COLA=0), the COLA raise for 2017 is only a pathetic 0.3%. That's less than half of one percent, and means someone getting a $1,000 monthly benefit in 2016, will get a $1,003 monthly benefit in 2017.

The SSA says it bases the COLA on the difference between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the third quarter of last year and the third quarter of this year (September 2015 to September 2016). That can't be right though. The CPI in September of 2015 was 237.945, and the CPI in September of 2016 was 241.428. That's an increase of 1.46% -- significantly larger than the 0.3% COLA for 2017.

That means the COLA for 2017 should be about 1.5% (or a $15 raise for someone drawing a benefit of $1000 a month). That may not sound like much of a difference to someone making a lot of money, but to someone having to exist on their Social Security benefit it makes a big difference.

And it gets even worse. The inflation rate for the first nine months of 2016 (January through September) was even higher (2.07%).  This means seniors relying on a Social Security check for their income will fall further behind next year, whether you use the CPI for the last 12 months (1.46%) or for the nine months of 2016 (2.07%). It seems obvious to me that Social Security benefits need to be raised -- especially for those making less than the median Social Security benefit.

The Republicans will not do that. They want to reduce current benefits and raise the retirement age -- something that would hurt most seniors, and throw many of them into poverty. Anyone receiving Social Security benefits, or getting close to applying for those benefits, would be either stupid or crazy to vote Republican in November.

Hillary Clinton and the Democrats want to raise benefits (at least for those making the smallest amount). They would lift more seniors out of poverty. And they would pay for it by making the wealthy share more of the cost -- as should have been done long ago.

Social Security benefits need to be raised, and the wealthy need to pay their fair share. Only the Democrats will do that. Remember that when you go to the polls this year.

The U.S. Government Does NOT Respect American Workers

Some may think my headline is not true. After all, didn't we just celebrate a national holiday that honors the American worker? But the fact is that one day designated as a holiday doesn't show respect, if the other 364 days in the year has our government enacting policies that hurt American workers -- and that is exactly what has happened since about 1980.

That was the year the Republicans gained enough power to enact their terrible "trickle-down" economic policy. That policy stated that giving more to the rich and the corporations would benefit all Americans, since those people would share their new wealth with workers. It was a silly idea, and it didn't work. The rich and the corporations did very well, but nothing trickled down.

The top chart emphasizes that. Note that while productivity continued to rise, almost all of it was gobbled up by the richest Americans. The top 1% saw their incomes rise over 240% between 1980 and 2009, while the bottom 99% barely saw any gains at all. And that is still happening. The rich are still receiving about 95% of rising productivity, while the rest of America are left to share about 5%.

That's not respect for workers. That's government policy designed to make the rich even richer at the expense of American workers. And it gets worse. Every other government in the developed world requires employers to give workers time off each week, provide workers with a paid annual leave, and provide for paid maternity leave. The U.S. government doesn't require employers to do any of that (see bottom chart above).

To be fair, it not the entire government that doesn't want to guarantee those benefits for American workers. Most Democrats believe providing those benefits is only fair, and they have tried to institute them. But their efforts have been blocked by the Republicans in our federal government. The Republicans have chosen to side with the rich and corporations, and their policies show no respect for workers. In fact, those policies have hurt workers. The stagnant worker wages actually represent a drop in the buying power of workers after inflation is figured in.

We need more protections and benefits for workers in the United States -- but that is not going to happen as long as the Republican control any part of the government.

NOTE -- The charts above were found at Mother Jones.

Warren Calls For A 3.9% COLA Increase For Social Security

By now you've probably heard that there will be no cost-of-living (COLA) increase in Social Security benefits for 2016. The COLA is based on inflation -- and the huge drop in the cost of gasoline has caused inflation figures to go way down.

The problem with this is that gasoline is a minor expense for most Social Security recipients -- especially those who live on a small fixed budget. They don't need to drive to work every day, or haul children around to their various activities.

But the things that these retirees need the most (food, clothing, rent, medical care, etc.) have not gone down. They all cost more now -- and having no COLA next year just means many retirees will fall further behind financially (as the buying power of their Social Security check goes down).

Senator Elizabeth Warren knows this, and she doesn't think it's fair. That's why she is introducing a bill in Congress to give Social Security recipients a 3.9% increase in their benefit for 2016. Here's how she explains it in her latest message to her supporters:

Three weeks ago, the Social Security Administration made a quiet announcement.

Next year, for just the third time since 1975, seniors who receive Social Security won’t be getting an annual cost of living increase. Neither will millions of other Americans whose veterans’ benefits, disability benefits, and other monthly payments are pegged to Social Security.

Two-thirds of retirees depend on Social Security to pay for the basics, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads – but seniors who usually get a small boost on January 1st won’t see an extra dime next year. That’s why today, I’m introducing the Seniors and Veterans Emergency (SAVE) Benefits Act – a one-time payment equivalent to a Social Security benefits increase of 3.9%.

Why give seniors and veterans a 3.9% Social Security boost? Well, times are tough for America’s seniors – but they aren't tough for everyone. According to recent data, CEOs at the top 350 American companies received, on average, a 3.9% pay increase last year.

But here’s the kicker: taxpayers like you subsidize huge pay packages for CEOs through billions of dollars in giveaways, including a crazy loophole that allows corporations to write off obscene executive bonuses as a business expense for “performance pay.”

Our new SAVE Benefits Act would give seniors and veterans a benefits boost without adding a single penny to the deficit simply by closing that performance pay loophole. In fact, closing that tax loophole would create enough revenue to give seniors and vets this 3.9% emergency boost and still have money left over for the Social Security Trust Fund to help extend the life of Social Security.

Think about what this change would mean. A one-time 3.9% Social Security payment is worth about $581 a person next year – a little less than $50 a month. For someone barely scraping by on a $1,250 Social Security check each month, $581 would cover almost three months of groceries, or a year’s worth of out-of-pocket costs for a Medicare beneficiary’s prescription drugs. According to an analysis, that little boost could lift more than 1 million Americans out of poverty. That’s a big deal.

This is about choices. We have the money to do this – only right now that money goes to fund a loophole that benefits corporate CEOs. We could use exactly that same money to help out seniors and vets – and make the Social Security system more stable. For me, it’s pretty straightforward: Our spending should reflect our values. 

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

P.S. I've got a strong, tough, determined group of fighters by my side for the SAVE Benefits Act: Ed Markey, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Chuck Schumer, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Kirsten Gillibrand, Al Franken, Dick Blumenthal, Chris Murphy, Mazie Hirono, and Tammy Baldwin. Join us now to help give seniors and veterans the boost they need on January 1st.

Texas Will Provide Benefits To Same-Sex Spouses

(Image is from the blog of Michelle Thrall.)

Texas Republicans have whined loudly ever since the Supreme Court declared last Friday that marriage was a constitutional right, and therefore could not be denied to same-sex couples. The Governor and Lt. Governor have both declared their opposition to the Supreme Court decision, and the Attorney General issued a legal opinion -- an opinion that has raised a furor in the public.

I think that furor was because many people misunderstood exactly what the opinion said. It was reported that the opinion would allow County Clerk offices to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious freedom grounds. What it actually said was that individual employees could do that -- but went on to say if an office issued opposite-sex couples licenses but refused to do that for same-sex couples, or refused to issue any licenses at all, it could be in legal trouble (and subject to sanctions or fines).

County Clerks across the state understood the opinion, and are already starting to issue licenses to same-sex couples -- and if there are a few hold-outs, they won't last long. In short, Texas will go along with the Supreme Court's ruling. The Republicans just had to engage in one of their favorite pastimes before obeying -- performing a bit of political theater to appease their base

On Monday, there was more evidence of Texas falling in line with the new law. The announcement was made that starting today (Wednesday), the Employee Retirement System (ERS) would begin providing benefits to the same-sex spouses of Texas employees. The ERS is the agency that provides benefits for most employees of the state and retirees. They are to be joined in providing those benefits by the University of Texas system and the Texas A&M University system.

The Republicans don't like it, and they have complained loudly, but Texas will comply with the law.

Republicans Are Playing With Fire On Social Security

For a few years now, the congressional Republicans have been trying to convince Americans that Social Security is going broke, will soon be bankrupt, and won't be around when today's young people are ready to retire. Those are all outrageous LIES!

Social Security has the funding to keep paying full benefits until shortly after 2030 -- and even then it will not be broke or bankrupt. It would be able to continue paying at least 80% of full benefits for many more years.

Why are the Republicans telling these ridiculous lies? Because they have always hated the program. They voted against it when it was created, and they've been trying to get rid of it ever since. They know they can't get rid of it all at once, so they've been trying to chip away at it and damage the program until it is no longer viable. They will claim they are trying to "save" the program, but all of their proposals would seriously damage it.

A couple of their most onerous suggestions are to cut benefits for retirees, and to raise the age of retirement to get Social Security benefits. These are terrible ideas -- and they are not supported by the American public. A whopping 77% of Americans opposes cutting benefits, while only 13% support it. And a significant majority of 56% opposes raising the retirement age, while only 27% support that idea.

Americans know that Social Security is a government program that works. It has reduced the number of seniors living in poverty from over 50% to under 10%. Americans also know that there is a fix for the funding problem Social Security will face in the future -- one that doesn't involve cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

As the chart below shows, 55% of Americans would support raising the cap on income subject to FICA (Social Security) payroll taxes above the current cap of $118,500 (or eliminate that cap). That wouldn't affect most workers at all, since their already paying the full amount for the FICA tax. It would just require the rich to pay the same percentage that everyone else already pays -- and that seems fair to me.

The Republicans are playing with fire by trying to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize Social Security (another dumb GOP idea). They think the American people are fools -- and that just may jump up to bite them on election day.

Below are charts about a couple more ideas floating around to "fix" Social Security -- to decrease the benefits of retirees making $80,000 or more -- and to eliminate the benefits for retirees making $200,000 or more. Neither idea would fix the future funding problem, because they wouldn't save nearly enough money.

Both ideas have plurality support, but neither gets a significant majority in support from the public.

All of these charts on this page were made with information contained in a new YouGov Poll -- done between April 18th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a 4.1 point margin of error.

It's Time The U.S. Guaranteed Paid Sick Leave To Workers

It is a sign of the power that business and corporate interests have over the United States government that this country does not guarantee any amount of paid sick leave for any worker (or paid annual leave or paid maternity leave). In fact, out of the 22 most developed nations of the world, the United States is the only one that doesn't require businesses to provide at least some paid sick leave.

You may be saying to yourself -- Don't most businesses provide paid sick leave for workers anyway? Some do. According to the Labor Department, about 61% of American workers receive at least some amount of paid sick leave. But that means there are 39% who do not get any paid sick leave benefit. And since the latest Labor Department statistics say there are 148,201,000 employed workers at this time, that means there are around 57,798,000 workers who do not get a paid sick leave benefit.

That 57-58 million workers must go to work when they are sick, or they will get their pay cut for that week (and could lose their job). Many of them are in low-wage jobs (at or near the minimum wage) and having a hard time making ends meet anyway. They simply cannot afford to miss any pay at all. This means they have to go to work sick -- even if it means they are endangering their own health, or the health or fellow employees or customers who could contract a disease from them.

It is inexcusable that the richest nation in the world has so little care for its workers. It is time for this government to show it cares as much about workers as it does about corporations, and require all businesses to provide some paid sick leave for all workers.

The corporate-owned congressional Republicans oppose requiring paid sick leave -- but that just makes one more issue on which they oppose the majority of Americans. The charts in this post are from a recent YouGov Poll -- done between January 29th and February 1st of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points. It shows that a whopping 70% of the public thinks businesses should be required to provide paid sick leave -- and that extends across all demographic groups.

And that's not all. About 67% also think businesses should be required to provide paid maternity leave -- and a smaller, but still significant majority (55%) think businesses should also be required to provide paid paternity leave.