Latest news with #clawback
Fox News
7 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
These are the Republicans who voted against Trump's $9 billion clawback of foreign aid, NPR funding
Though Senate Republicans were successful in their mission to pass President Donald Trump's clawback package, not every member of the conference was on board. Only two Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined with every Senate Democrat to vote against the $9 billion package geared toward clawing back foreign aid and public broadcasting funding. Senate Republican leaders had hoped that stripping $400 million in cuts to Bush-era international AIDS and HIV prevention funding could win over all the holdouts, both public and private. But the lawmakers who voted against the bill had deeper concerns about the level of transparency during the process and the impact successful rescissions could have on Congress' power of the purse. Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she agreed with rescissions in general and supports them during the appropriations process, but couldn't get behind the White House's push because of a lack of clarity from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about exactly what would be cut and how. She said that "the sparse text" sent to lawmakers included little detail and did not give a specific accounting of programs that would be cut to hit the original $9.4 billion target. "For example, there are $2.5 billion in cuts to the Development Assistance account, which covers everything from basic education, to water and sanitation, to food security — but we don't know how those programs will be affected," she said. Murkowski demanded a return to legislating and appeared to warn that lawmakers were just taking marching orders from the White House rather than doing their own work. Both Murkowski and Collins were also concerned about the cuts to public broadcasting, particularly to rural radio stations. Both attempted to make changes to the bill during the vote-a-rama. Collins' ultimately decided not to bring her amendment, which would have reduced the total amount of cuts in the bill to north of $6 billion, to the floor. However, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., still brought the change for a vote. And Murkowski offered an amendment that would have drastically reduced the cuts to public broadcasting. The climactic vote for the bill came hours after tsunami warnings rippled through Alaska, and Murkowski argued that federal warnings were relayed through local public broadcasting. "The tsunami warnings are now thankfully canceled, but the warning to the U.S. Senate remains in effect," she said. "Today of all days, we should vote down these misguided cuts to public broadcasting." Still, both attempts to modify the bill failed to pass muster. Their decision to go against the package left some scratching their heads. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., argued that the cuts amounted to less than a tenth of a percent of the federal government's entire budget. "This should be a chip shot, OK? I have faith in [OMB Director] Russ Vought," he said. "I have faith in the Trump administration. They're not going to cut things that are important spending." Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who is leading the bill in the Senate, rebuked the duo's arguments and said that lawmakers weighing in on the rescissions package was in line with their legislative duties. "That's exactly what we're doing," the Missouri Republican said. "I would hope that maybe what this will also do is highlight some of the wasteful spending, so when we get into the appropriations process in the next few months that we would be more keen to be focused on saving people money." Trump's bill, which would cancel unspent congressionally approved funding, would slash just shy of $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS. Some lawmakers, like Sen. Thom Tillis, who earlier this month voted against Trump's "big, beautiful bill" over cuts to Medicaid funding, understood where the pair were coming from. The North Carolina Republican told Fox News Digital that Collins, in particular, would be leading negotiations for an end-of-year bipartisan funding deal with Senate Democrats, and to vote in favor of canceling congressionally approved funding could hurt her ability to find a solution to keep the government funded. "I don't think people really understand the value of your word and your consistency and your living up to commitments and how important that is to getting things done," Tillis said. "And this, I think, that's what Susan's looking at, I think Murkowski is as well, and I respect them for that."
Fox News
16-07-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Senate to debate Trump's $9B clawback bill after dramatic late-night votes
Late-night dramatics and surprise defections capped off the push to advance President Donald Trump's multibillion-dollar clawback package through procedural hurdles. But Trump's $9 billion rescissions package is not over the finish line yet, as lawmakers are set to begin an hourslong stretch of debate over the bill Wednesday morning. Both sides of the aisle will be allotted five hours of debate, but Republicans are likely to use little of their time compared to Democrats, who will try to drag out the process as long as possible. At stake are clawbacks that would yank back congressionally approved funding for foreign aid programs and public broadcasting, which Senate Democrats, and some Republicans, have admonished. The president's rescissions package proposed cutting just shy of $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and over $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-backed funding arm for NPR and PBS. Republicans have broadly lauded the targets, arguing that they are scraping back funding for "woke" programs that do little more than to gird the government's spending addiction. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., charged that the cuts in question were "just a piece of a larger Republican puzzle." He said the goal was using more rescissions packages, the president's impoundment authority and smaller, pocket rescissions "that will pave the way for deeper and more serious spending cuts on things like healthcare, food assistance, energy, and so many other areas – and other democratic safeguards will no longer be around.""They are eliminating Democrats from the process – there's no discussion, no argument, and there's no safeguards to help the average American," he said. "It's just the billionaires running rampant, and we're getting what they want." Before the vote, Senate Republican leaders agreed to carve out $400 million in cuts in global HIV and AIDS prevention funding that leaders hoped would win over holdouts. But it didn't work for all. A trio of Senate Republicans defected – Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. – forcing Vice President JD Vance to cast his sixth and seventh tie-breaking votes of the year to keep the package alive. He will likely be needed again later Wednesday to pass the bill, once lawmakers complete another vote-a-rama, where both sides of the aisle can offer unlimited amendments to the bill. Murkowski argued on the Senate floor that the rescissions package was effectively usurping Congress' duty to legislate. "We're lawmakers, we should be legislating," she said. "What we're getting now is a direction from the White House and being told, 'This is the priority we want you to execute on it. We'll be back with you with another round.' I don't accept that." Collins contended that lawmakers actually knew little about how or where the clawbacks would come from, and accused the Office of Management and Budget of not painting a clearer picture on the issue. "I recognize the need to reduce excessive spending and I have supported rescissions in our appropriations bills many times, including the 70 rescissions that were included in the year-long funding bill that we are currently operating under," she said in a statement. "But to carry out our constitutional responsibility, we should know exactly what programs are affected and the consequences of rescissions."
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The CRA Mistake That Could Cut Your Old Age Security in Half
Written by Kay Ng at The Motley Fool Canada Every year, thousands of Canadian retirees unknowingly lose out on hundreds – or even thousands – of dollars in Old Age Security (OAS) benefits due to a little-known income trap: the OAS clawback. In 2025, this silent tax could reduce or even eliminate your OAS if you're not careful. But the good news? With the right investment strategy, you can protect your benefits – and possibly even grow your wealth at the same time. The OAS clawback begins when your net world income exceeds $90,997 (This amount rises over time and can be looked up on the Government of Canada website.). For every dollar over that threshold, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) claws back 15 cents from your OAS payments. That means if your net income hits approximately $148,000, your entire OAS benefit could be wiped out. Here's the kicker: many Canadians trigger the clawback by mistake, through taxable income from RRIF withdrawals, capital gains, or even dividends from non-registered investments. The impact? You could lose up to $8,819 or more in OAS – essentially handing it right back to the CRA. One way to avoid the clawback is by holding tax-efficient dividend stocks such as Fortis (TSX: FTS). Fortis is one of Canada's top utility companies, with a 51-year track record of annual dividend increases. It is a reliable income-generating stock and currently, it yields around 3.8%. To eliminate the clawback entirely and with sufficient room, retirees could hold their stock investments in their Tax-Free Savings Accounts (TFSA). Because TFSA withdrawals and growth don't count toward your net income, this money has zero impact on your OAS eligibility. Compare that to earning the same dividends in a non-registered account, where grossed-up dividends inflate your net income and can accelerate the clawback. To truly dodge the OAS clawback, consider these additional strategies: 1. Take full advantage of your TFSA Max out your TFSA contributions annually. In 2025, the cumulative TFSA contribution limit for someone who was 18 in 2009 is $102,000, and possibly higher if unused room remains. Dividends, capital gains, and withdrawals from a TFSA are not taxed, nor do they impact net income. 2. Split pension income If you're receiving eligible pension income, split up to 50% with your spouse who may be in a lower tax bracket. This reduces your individual taxable income and could keep you below the clawback threshold. 3. Withdraw from RRSPs strategically If it makes sense for your unique situation, start drawing down RRSPs before age 71 to manage your taxable income in retirement. Large RRIF withdrawals after conversion at age 71 can push you into the OAS clawback zone. Early, gradual withdrawals — especially if reinvested into your TFSA — can smooth your income and preserve OAS benefits. The OAS clawback isn't a tax penalty — it's a retirement planning problem. Without a proactive strategy, your retirement income plan could backfire, resulting in you losing out on thousands of dollars. But by combining TFSA investing, dividend-paying stocks like Fortis, and tax-smart withdrawal planning, you can keep your income high and your clawback low. The biggest mistake? Ignoring the issue. Don't let the CRA take a bigger slice of your retirement than necessary. Plan now, and you'll thank yourself later. Talk to a qualified financial planner if needed. The post The CRA Mistake That Could Cut Your Old Age Security in Half appeared first on The Motley Fool Canada. The Motley Fool Stock Advisor Canada analyst team just identified what they believe are the Top Stocks for 2025 and Beyond for investors to buy now. The Top Stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years, potentially setting you up for a more prosperous retirement. Consider when "the eBay of Latin America," MercadoLibre, made this list on January 8, 2014 ... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $24,927.94* Stock Advisor Canada provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month – one from Canada and one from the U.S. The Stock Advisor Canada service has outperformed the return of S&P/TSX Composite Index by 30 percentage points since 2013*. See the Top Stocks * Returns as of 6/23/25 More reading 10 Stocks Every Canadian Should Own in 2025 [PREMIUM PICKS] Market Volatility Toolkit Fool contributor Kay Ng has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Fortis. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2025 Sign in to access your portfolio
Forbes
27-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What DOGE Can Do For Social Security
The Social Security Administration sends millions of "clawback letters" each year. If the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can stop our Social Security system from sending checks to dead people, that would be a plus. Yet a far more important task is to stop the system from overpaying people who are very much alive. Last year the Social Security Administration admitted it had identified 2 million beneficiaries who have been overpaid and sent them 'clawback' letters, demanding the government's money back. Some of these claims go back several decades, and they can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. As revealed in a recent episode of 60 Minutes, in one case the agency sent a clawback letter to a 32-year-old man, living on Social Security and disabled by cerebral palsy. The agency claimed that 21 years earlier, when he was 11 years old, his mother was overpaid $4,902 on his behalf—and the government wants its money back! In another case the agency demanded more than $300,000 from a disabled woman living on her Social Security benefits. In a third case, the agency demanded to be reimbursed for an overpayment that was 45 years old. In all these cases, the agency admits that these mistakes were made by the government, not by the beneficiaries. Further, if its demands are not met, Social Security threatens to stop sending the beneficiaries as much as half of their monthly benefit checks. Aside from the human tragedies clawback letters create for the people who receive them, there are three practical reasons why taxpayers should care. First, our government has wasted millions of dollars by sending out checks for the wrong amounts—money that in most cases will never be recovered. Second, when the government demands its money back it is often going after people who had no idea they were overpaid and who are living on a fixed income. Forcing a retiree to sell his house or cash out his IRA to pay a surprise bill from the government seems especially cruel in many cases. That's inconsistent with Social Security's role as a safety net. Third, virtually no one on Social Security knows whether their check is the 'right' amount. That means every beneficiary is at risk of receiving a clawback letter, and that creates a level of insecurity that is the opposite of the purpose of the Social Security system. Although the dimensions are much smaller, Social Security acknowledges it also has a history of sending checks to people who are dead. We don't have to rely on Donald Trump or Elon Musk for verification. The agency's Inspector General recently discovered as many as 217 dead Oregonians were receiving checks. In one case, a dead beneficiary received checks for 15 years. While the agency overpays some people, it underpays others. According to the Office of Inspector General, more than 13,000 widows and widowers collectively have lost $130 million in Social Security benefits because of mistakes in claiming spousal benefits. Married couples also lose thousands of dollars because they make mistakes in claiming spousal benefits. More often than not, these mistakes are made because of bad advice from Social Security personnel. Note: If people make a mistake in claiming benefits, they are generally not allowed to correct it—even if the mistake was not their fault. Yet, as noted, if Social Security makes the mistake, it demands its money back. Why is Social Security making so many mistakes? For two reasons. First, the system is enormously complex. It has 2728 rules and hundreds of thousands of pages explaining the rules, governing just 13 basic benefits. Second, it relies on human resources rather than computer programs to make decisions. The most important revelation from DOGE so far is not the finding of large amounts of fraud, waste and abuse. It is the finding that so many agencies (including the IRS and the FAA) are using computer programming language that the private sector abandoned decades ago. The main language used to run Social Security's core systems, for example, is a 60-year-old program called COBOL (Common Business-Oriented Language). There aren't that many people alive who are still able to program in COBOL. That Social Security does not have a computer program that can tell its own employees as well as beneficiaries the right amount of their monthly benefit is truly amazing. What is even more surprising is that the private sector not only has a very accurate Social Security benefit calculator, it also tells viewers how to claim benefits in a way that maximizes their lifetime income. The private calculator, developed by Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, is available to everyone for $49. Yet think of how much misery could be avoided if the government created something similar – or simply leased the private program -- and made it available to everyone for free. It was Prof. Kotliioff who first discovered the problem of clawback letters. He created an online portal where people could submit their personal horror stories, many of which appear in a book he co-authored with financial advice columnist Terry Savage. Going forward, there are three changes that merit urgent attention. First, we need to bring Social Security's computer systems into the 21st century. There is no reason why the country's most important retirement system isn't using the same software available to private financial firms. Second, there should be a reliable online calculator that allows Social Security personnel to avoid mistakes and prospective beneficiaries to make informed judgments about claiming benefits. Third, there should be a one-year statute of limitations on Social Security clawback claims while we are waiting to get an accurate computer system in place. DOGE can help with the first two of these reforms. Congress is probably needed for the third.
