Tag: cnbc
Former Officials Warn Social Security Purge 'May Delay Retiree Benefits'

Former Officials Warn Social Security Purge 'May Delay Retiree Benefits'

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is now confirming that it plans to lay off 7,000 workers as President Donald Trump's administration proceeds with its mass firings of federal employees.

CNBC reported that while the SSA won't be laying off 50 percent of its workforce as it previously suggested, it's aiming to reduce its number of employees from 57,000 to 50,000. While the agency won't be gutted by the firings, Greg Senden— a paralegal analyst who worked at the SSA for 27 years — said it's likely the layoffs will harm beneficiaries.

""It's going to extend the amount of time that it takes for them to have their claim processed," said Senden, who helps the American Federation of Government Employees administer Social Security benefits to its retirees in six states. "It's going to extend the amount of time that they have to wait to get benefits.

The SSA, which is now led by acting commissioner Leland Dudek, said it aims to achieve most of its layoffs through offering early retirement to longtime employees and voluntary reassignments. It also hunted at "reduction-in-force actions that could include abolishment of organizations and positions."

Dudek, who the Washington Post reported praised South African centibillionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on social media, leapfrogged several more senior officials at the SSA to lead the agency last month. He took over after former acting commissioner Michelle King was effectively forced out after refusing to allow DOGE officials to access sensitive Social Security data.

Last month, Martin O'Malley — the Democratic Maryland ex-governor who served as SSA commissioner under former President Joe Biden — warned that if DOGE made drastic cuts to the agency, retirees could soon feel the brunt of it in their pockets.

"At this rate, they will break it. And they will break it fast, and there will be an interruption of benefits," O'Malley said. "I believe you will see that within the next 30 to 90 days."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Andrew Ross Sorkin

Top Business Executives Spooked By Trump's Bizarre Behavior In Meeting

New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin on Friday delivered a “brutal” report on Donald Trump’s meeting with top U.S. chief executive officers (CEOs), telling CNBC that those who met with the former president found him “meandering,” and walked away from the event “less predisposed” to voting for him over President Joe Biden.

Trump on Thursday met with about 100 corporate leaders, including Apple’s Tim Cook, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon and Citigroup’s Jane Fraser, at a Business Roundtable event in Washington D.C., Financial Times reports.

According to Financial Times, at least one attendee said Trump “came across as solid, almost business-like, and not something else like we sometimes see.”

But Sorkin’s sources in the room told a different story, according to a CNBC report labeled by Biden spokesperson James Singer as “brutal.”

“I will say, I was surprised,” Sorkin said of his sources' reactions to the event.

The New York Times columnist continued:

I spoke to enough CEOs who I would say walked into the meeting being Trump supporter-ish — or thinking that they might be leaning that direction — who said that he was remarkably meandering, could not keep a straight thought, was all over the map. Which may not be surprising, but was interesting to me because these were people who I think might have been actually predisposed to him, actually walked out of the room less predisposed to him — actually predisposed to thinking, "this is not necessary."

“As one person said, 'This might not be any different or better than a Biden thought, if you’re thinking that way,'” Sorkin added.

In the meeting, Trump, Financial Times reports, “discussed his right-wing economic agenda and bashed President Joe Biden’s handling of global events, from the U.S.’s withdrawal from Afghanistan to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’s attack on Israel.”

According to the report, he also “told his audience he would consider lowering the 21 per cent corporate tax rate even further, after cutting it from 35 per cent in 2017.”

Watch Sorkin's report below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

New York State Probing Gender Bias Charge Against Fox News

New York State Probing Gender Bias Charge Against Fox News

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet

Melissa Francis is among the former Fox News employees who has had a legal battle with the right-wing cable news outlet, filing a gender discrimination lawsuit and alleging retaliation on their part. Now, according to Daily Beast reporters Diana Falzone and Justin Baragona, the New York State Labor Department is investigating Francis’ allegations.

Kevin Mintzer, Francis’ attorney, told the Beast, “Ms. Francis filed a charge with the New York State Department of Labor because Fox News has not changed and continues to discriminate and retaliate against women, including those who seek equal pay for equal work.”

According to Falzone and Baragona, they asked the New York State Labor Department for a comment on the investigation but was told, “The NYS DOL does not comment (confirm nor deny) on potential or pending investigations.” And a Fox News spokesperson would not comment on the probe either but told the Beast that Fox News “parted ways with Melissa Francis nearly a year ago.”

Francis is by no means the only female ex-employee of Fox News and/or Fox Business who has had a legal battle with them. Others have ranged from Gretchen Carlson to Andrea Tantaros, and Falzone herself is a former Fox News employee who filed a gender-based discrimination lawsuit against them.

Francis, a former actress, worked at CNBC before her association with Fox News and its sister channel Fox Business. She spent roughly eight years with Fox News, starting in 2012.

The GOP’s Debate Debacle: Will Republicans Get Away With Bullying The Media?

The GOP’s Debate Debacle: Will Republicans Get Away With Bullying The Media?

This piece originally appeared on Media Matters.

Republicans now have a list of demands.

Still reeling from what Republican Party chief Reince Priebus called “gotcha” questions last week in the CNBC primary debate that were “petty and mean-spirited in tone,” campaign operatives huddled over the weekend to address the Great Debate crisis of 2015.

Convinced that the media act as Hillary Clinton’s “ultimate super PAC,” Republicans and their supporters in the conservative media have elevated press-bashing to unusual heights.

Indeed, by suspending a Feb. 26 debate scheduled to be hosted by NBC News and the NBC-owned, Spanish-language network Telemundo, Republicans signaled that the latest bout of media catcalls from the right — catcalls that have been part of working the refs for decades — have attained almost mythical status.

Republicans, in mid-game, are now trying to dictate the terms of the debates. Donald Trump is even negotiating directly with television executives in an effort to alter the content and format. The unprecedented blitz sends a clear message that if moderators aren’t nice to candidates and if there are any objections over “tone,” future debates might get yanked.

“What happened in this debate wasn’t an attack by the press on the candidates. It was an attack by the candidates on the press,” wrote William Saletan at Slate. “Presented with facts and figures that didn’t fit their story, the leading Republican candidates accused the moderators of malice and deceit.”

But will Republicans get away with it? Early signs look promising for the GOP, less promising for journalism.

Look at how NBC responded to the Republican National Committee’s suspension notice: “This is a disappointing development. However, along with our debate broadcast partners at Telemundo we will work in good faith to resolve this matter with the Republican Party.”

Doesn’t “work in good faith to resolve this matter” sound a bit like NBC conceding there was something wrong with the CNBC debate and that the network’s determined to fix it?

Or look at it this way, does “work in good faith to resolve this matter” sound like a news organization staunchly standing up for its editorial team facing bogus charges of bias? Or does it sound like a network desperate to make nice with the GOP?

Obviously news organizations are wading into treacherous territory if they’re willing to let politicians dictate the tone and content after the debate season is already underway; if they’re willing to “play nicely” with political parties. As Washington Post associate editor David Maraniss tweeted, “If networks had integrity they would refuse to host or air any debate in which candidates dictated terms. Period.”

But this year it’s not just about standing up to Republican bullies, it’s also about money. Lots and lots of money.

Debates used to be mostly prestige events that news outlets pointed to with pride as symbols of their power and influence. Today, they’ve ballooned into huge moneymakers for the host cable channels thanks to record-breaking viewership. CNBC normally sells primetime, 30-second ads for $5,000. During last week’s debate, CNBC was fetching 50 times that for the same ad time.

Also note that CNBC remains the chief rival of the Fox Business Network, which is hosting the next Republican debate. It seems clear that Fox News had additional motivation to trash CNBC’s performance, while touting Fox Business.

Here’s the transcript from a commercial that ran on Fox last week:

VOICEOVER: CNBC never asked the real questions, never covered the real issues. That’s why on November 10, the real debate about our economy and our future is only on Fox Business Network.

With that allure of debate millions likely comes additional pressure to make sure Republicans are happy; to make sure they don’t pick up their ball and go home. One simple solution is to eliminate the commercials all together and air the debates on proudly non-partisan C-SPAN.

Perhaps another solution is to allow Republicans to venture deeper into their information bubble and have debates moderated only by conservatives; only by people who have voted in Republican primaries, as Ted Cruz demanded. (i.e. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc.)

I see at least two drawbacks from that blueprint. First, there’s little evidence those type of partisan moderators, who are deeply invested in the failure of Democrats, would provide much insight. During the earlier GOP debate hosted by CNN, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt was invited to ask questions and, as Joan Walsh at The Nationnoted, prefaced one of his queries by declaring, “I think all of you are more qualified than former secretary of state Clinton.”

Secondly, if Republicans opt for the bubble approach, what are they going to do when it comes time for general election debates? Aren’t we going to see the same whiny charade all over again, complete with more hollow allegations of liberal media bias, when non-conservative moderators pose questions that Republicans don’t like or can’t answer truthfully in October 2016?

And let there be no doubt, Republicans had a hard time being truthful at the CNBC debate.

From the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell:

Donald Trump denied ever taking a dig at Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, even though the dig in question was on Trump’s Web site.

Ben Carson denied having any “involvement” with a sketchy maker of nutritional supplements, even though evidence of this involvement (including a video testimonial) is easily findable online.

Chris Christie claimed Social Security money was “stolen” and that the system will be “insolvent” in seven to eight years, even though both claims are wrong. Fiorina recycled a statistic about women’s job losses that Mitt Romney used in 2012 and subsequently abandoned when it, too, was proved wrong.

And so on.

Over and over Republicans prevaricated while CNBC moderators mostly tried to wade through the misinformation and obfuscations. But after this historic GOP hissy fit, will debate moderators risk their reputations, and possibly their careers, by holding candidates accountable?

Photo: (L-R) John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina,  Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Rand Paul participate in the 2016 U.S. Republican presidential candidates debate held by CNBC in Boulder, Colorado, October 28, 2015. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World