ICE targeting construction sites

It’s not shocking that President Trump contradicted himself about immigration enforcement, ordering new raids on farms and hotels days after saying he’d spare those industries. But it’s somewhat surprising he’s been silent about construction, the sector with the most immigrants on the job – especially since camouflaged men are increasingly showing up unannounced at construction sites.

In recent weeks, masked agents with no ID’s, supposedly from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have raided construction sites and seized workers without warrants in California, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah.

“It really is widespread,” said Jim Tobin, president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). “Whole crews are not coming to work because they're fearful of a raid.”

Tim Henderson of Stateline reported, “Trump’s Dept. of Homeland Security is going after construction workers without legal status to meet its mass deportation goals — despite the country having a housing shortage. A shortage of workers has delayed or prevented construction, causing billions of dollars in economic damage, according to a June report from the Home Builders Institute.”

About one-quarter of all immigrants without a college degree work in construction, some 2.2 million workers as of May That’s more than the next three industries combined: restaurants (1.1 million), janitorial and other cleaning services (526,000) and landscaping (454,000), according to data from the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series compilation of federal Current Population Survey statistics analyzed by Stateline. Some trades have higher percentages.

“ICE raids would generally affect contractors or employers who exploit their workers,” commented Clint Drury, Executive Director of the West Central Building and Construction Trades Council. “These employers classify their workers as 1099 contractors or independent contractors, but at the same time treat them as employees, which is illegal in Illinois under the Illinois Misclassification of Workers Act.

“Enforcement is unfortunately lacking due to the small number of conciliators or investigators at the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL),” he continued. “Organized labor is constantly advocating for increased staff at the IDOL.”

David Kelly, a lecturer in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Michigan, said, “The large difference [in cost] suggests workers and their employers in some regions are not paying for income taxes, overtime, Social Security or unemployment insurance. Since undocumented workers have limited employment options, they may be more willing than others to accept these conditions.”

Drury said, “Exploiting workers is everywhere, including downstate. There isn't a week that goes by that we aren't proactively or reactively trying to solve an issue of 1099 contractors on a project, which, let's be honest, are actual employees of the contractor. The Pere Marquette is one real-time example.”

Residential construction can use more immigrant labor because of looser state and local regulations and lower pay. And in some states with weaker unions and rules, like in the South, commercial construction also employs many immigrants who are here illegally.

Even if workers have legal work visas, many fear unlawful detention and deportation.

“It's harder to find construction labor, period,” said Tobin, of the NAHB. “So, this just adds to that, increasing cycle time, taking longer to complete a home. And then, when there's a lack of labor. Costs go up and that just increases the cost of the finished product.”

The consequences of either reducing the work force or letting undocumented immigrants continue to work at lower wages could adversely affect employers that play by the rules as far as bidding on jobs and the viability of staying in business.

“Our union contractors cannot compete with unethical contractors who circumvent paying unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance, minimum wage and overtime, Social Security and relevant state and federal taxes on their employees,” Drury aid. “It isn't apples to apples. We see a lot of 1099 workers in roofing, drywall, painting, framing, landscaping and concrete.   

“The trades have been longtime advocates for immigration reform and do not condone arrests or detainment without due process,” he added.

Among many questions in the “new normal” of work and labor under a cloud of detention and deportation is whether employers who have undocumented immigrants will be fined for hiring them as roofers and farm workers, at restaurants and meat-packing plants, at hotels and so many other places.

 

Social Security at risk, reforms needed – and popular

The historically nonpartisan Social Security Administration on July 3 sent an email to many Social Security recipients claiming Republicans’ newly approved budget reconciliation bill “eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.” However, the law does not actually eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits. Instead, it gives a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for individuals older than 65 with annual incomes less than $75,000 ($12,000 for married couples with incomes less than $150,000).

The email from President Trump’s handpicked Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano applauded the passage of the bill Republicans dutifully called the “Big Beautiful Bill,” but analysts say it will damage the New Deal program’s finances.

In the unusually political message, Bisignano – one of the country’s highest paid CEOs (reportedly receiving $100 million in 2017) at corporations including JPMorgan Chase and First Data – called Republicans’ measure an “historic step forward for America’s seniors” and a reaffirmation of the president’s “promise to protect Social Security.”

Among a range of misinformation about what the new law does is that the law does not protect Social Security. It will actually “hasten Social Security insolvency by a year,” according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Several claims in the SSA email are “highly misleading,” Romig said.

“Most beneficiaries are NOT affected by the bill,” she continued, “for example, beneficiaries who don’t pay taxes on Social Security now (and most don’t). beneficiaries under age 65, beneficiaries with incomes above the bill’s phase-out [after 2028].”

Other experts also warn that its massive tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, speed up when Social Security will no longer be able to pay out full benefits.

“By raising the standard deduction for all filers, and raising it even higher for some, fewer Social Security beneficiaries will pay taxes on their benefits, and those who do will pay lower rates,” said Romig and CBPP colleague Gbenga Ajilore. “Raising the standard deduction would deliver little to no benefit to lower- and moderate-income families while reducing income into Social Security’s trust funds.”

The conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) agreed, estimating that the GOP package will accelerate the depletion of Social Security and Medicare’s trust funds.

Americans want reforms – improvements -- of Social Security, according to research from the nonprofit, nonpartisan National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), which found that Americans want action now on a long-term funding solution for Social Security. Eighty-seven percent say Congress should act now rather than waiting, and the sentiment holds across gender, age and party affiliation.

NIRS’ “Americans’ Views of Social Security” also found that 87% of Americans agree that Social Security should remain a priority for the nation regardless of budget deficits.

“As economic inequality continues to grow, Social Security has become an increasingly vital source of retirement income for most older Americans,” said NIRS research director Tyler Bond. “It’s not surprising that our research finds enormous bipartisan support for the program. Nearly all retirees receive at least some income from Social Security each month, and for some retirees nearly 90% of their income in retirement will come from Social Security.”

About 74 million Americans receive Social Security benefits.

“Today, Social Security’s trust funds have a combined reserve of $2.7 trillion, and spending has exceeded revenue since 2021,” said Bob Weiner, former Chief of Staff of the U.S. House Committee on Aging under Chairman Claude Peppers (D-Fla.). “If nothing changes, in 2033 Social Security benefits will automatically be slashed by 23%.

“The [bipartisan] Pepper-O’Neill-Reagan deal of April 1983 was intended to ensure the Social Security program’s solvency for decades. But budget cost-cutters jeopardized the program’s long-term solvency when they tried to take from Social Security’s surplus. Remember Vice President Al Gore famously called for the surplus to be put in a ‘lockbox’.”

At the top of options Congress could pursue to fix Social Security before 2033, CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger’s recommendation: “Raise the payroll tax cap: Social Security taxes only apply to income up to $176,100 in 2025. If you make more than that, you stop paying Social Security taxes on the excess. Lifting this cap could solve a big chunk of the problem.”

Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.) has tried.

“Billionaires like President Trump and Elon Musk don’t need another tax cut – they need to pay their fair share,” Larson said. “I offered an amendment to stop taxing seniors on their Social Security and enhance benefits for the first time in 50 years by ensuring the wealthy pay into the system just like the rest of us. Every single Republican voted to defeat it – going back on their promise to end taxation of Social Security benefits.”

Larson proposed lifting the FICA earnings cap on income to $400,000 “so millionaires and billionaires pay into Social Security throughout the year,” he said. (President Biden also had unsuccessfully proposed that.)

As Schlesinger said, the current SSA cap is $176,100, so whether you make $176,100 or $5,176,100, you pay in the same. (SSA adjusts the cap annually to keep pace with inflation.)

“This is an economic development plan because every single district gets payments to their district. For example, Mr. Chairman [Missouri Republican Jason Smith], your monthly payments are $310 million that come into your district. What do people do with that money? They spend that money right back in their district. At the grocery store, at the pharmacy, at the dry cleaner, putting gas into their automobiles, paying their rent, paying their mortgage.”

The proposal is “fully paid for,” Larson continued, “including the tax cut that President Trump promised and has reneged on. We pay for it by lifting the cap on people who pay nothing or little into the nation's number-one anti-poverty program for the elderly and for children.

“We have to act now, not just to protect Social Security but to expand the benefits,” he added. “It needs to be protected; it needs to be enhanced — not cut and diminished. My amendment does exactly what the majority says that we are here to do.”

However, his proposal was defeated by all the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, whose members include U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Peoria), who also voted for Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Republicans argument, as explained by the conservative Manhattan Institute, is “there is no magic proposal showing that lifting the limit will avert the need to raise the eligibility age or reform benefits,” said MI Senior Fellow Brian Reidl. “Raising the limit without adjusting benefits accordingly would delink the two, turning Social Security into more of a traditional welfare system. Uncapping the payroll tax would add a 12.4% tax-rate hike for higher earners, pushing the top marginal rates well above 60%.”

It’s been far higher. During President Eisenhower’s presidency (1953-1961) the top marginal tax rate was more than 90%.

“I commend President Eisenhower,” Larson said. “And actually [fellow Republican] President Nixon was the last president that expanded and enhanced Social Security across-the-board – because they knew exactly what it would do, but it's been more than 50 years since Congress has enhanced Social Security across-the-board.”

Weak Democratic Party, frustrated labor show disarray

The sky isn’t falling for organized labor and the Democratic Party, which seems in disarray nationally.

In fact, the sky may be opening up, as some top labor leaders are fed up and a labor-backed candidate was the clear winner in Democrats’ primary for New York City Mayor.

In June, Randy Weingarten, president of the American Teachers Association, and Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (and chair of the AFL-CIO Political Committee of union presidents) both quit the Democratic National Committee.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat, I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities,” Weingarten wrote DNC chair Ken Martin in Washington.

The resignations came around the time the DNC’s Vice Chair, David Hogg, 25, stepped down from his position over objections to his establishing a $20 million campaign finance committee, to challenge “out-of-touch, in effective” incumbent Democrats.

“We launched ‘Leaders We Deserve’ because we were tired of being told to wait our turn,” Hogg said. “We can run now. We can win now.”

About 200 miles north, voters elected 33-year-old Muslim Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani to be Dems’ nominee for New York City’s mayor in a race that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo was favored to take. Cuomo had a huge war chest and endorsements by one-time heavy hitters Bill Clinton, Michael Bloomberg and James Clyburn, and consultants apparently expected voters to show the same deference to prominent Democrats and big donors they counted on in recent elections.

The New York City Labor Council has endorsed Mamdani, a social democrat, for the Nov. 4 election.

“Throughout his campaign and service as an elected leader, Assemblymember Mamdani has shown a deep and genuine commitment and connection to working families and communities,” said Vincent Alvarez, President of the coalition of some 300 unions. “He understands the urgent need to rein in the rising costs of living and preserve affordability, and to fight for policies that protect the right to organize, invest in union jobs, and ensure economic growth doesn’t come at the expense of workers.”     

Mamdani is a gifted speaker with a charismatic presence who used social media, face-to-face politicking, social media, and some 40,000 volunteers to appeal to voters who’d felt ignored or betrayed, campaigning on pocketbook issues.

“We beat $30 million in spending by the same billionaires who backed Donald Trump AND a political and media establishment that told us this race was unwinnable,” said Hoggs, a Mamdani supporter who became politically active at the age of 17 after surviving the mass shooting in Parkland,, Fla.

Meanwhile, some Democratic incumbents and consultants are saying they plan to campaign in the 2026 congressional elections on Trump’s terrible “Big Beautiful Bill,” an apparent variation of previous election losses that seemed to say, “We’re not as bad as Trump!” instead of articulating a positive message of possibilities and answers addressing the kitchen-table concerns everyday Americans have.

Besides trying to present Kamala Harris as a decent alternative to an indecent Trump, Democrats last year stressed their commitment to “save democracy.”

How’s that going, beyond unending requests for political donations and talking?

Showing a disconnect between Dems and the grassroots, author and former Democratic Texas state official Jim Hightower reported that this spring, “Democratic congressional leaders held an internal ‘gripe-fest.’ Not griping about Trump's authoritarian assault,  but about their constituents inundating them with calls and emails demanding that they grow spines and start fighting the rising oligarchy.”

Accepting the narrow votes codifying Trump’s agenda of attacking working people and the needy while enriching the wealthy, too many Democratic leaders seem timid – while regular Americans say they support universal health care, affordable child care, and higher taxes on the rich, according to Reuters – issues too many elected Democrats are lukewarm to back or sabotage.

If Democratic leaders subscribe to the tired excuse “That’s the way we’ve always done it,” they should consider other old sayings: “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity,” and “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

Democratic leader need a plan to help Americans help themselves and each other – and tell them.

“Unfortunately, many labor leaders are scared of their own shadow, [but] union leaders are stepping up to resist the Trump administration’s attacks on unions and working people,” said Matthew Cunnigham-Cook of City University of New York’s Labor Studies program. “Democratic leaders have failed to meet the moment.”

Indeed, four key unions are organizing against threats of unlawful detention and deportation of Americans and unionists: Auto Workers, Machinists, Service Employees, and Sheet Metal Workers.

Many unions, working people and even long-time Democrats resent being taken for granted – for phone-banking, door-knocking, money and votes.

The dockworkers’ International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is clear in its dissatisfaction with Democratic leaders.

“Democratic Party leadership and their rank and file members of Congress, with a few notable exceptions, have failed the American worker and can no longer be relied upon to be an effective opposition to the war on the working class,” said ILWU President Bobby Olvera Jr.

“The last three months have underscored the importance of solidarity and having strong unions in our communities. The labor movement and the ILWU have been essential forces in defending democracy and civil rights,” he continued. But “the ILWU will no longer offer blind allegiance to any political party or individual politician. Our loyalty is to our rank-and-file membership and the values and principles upon which this union was built.”

Everyday Democrats seem to understand, as a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 62% of Democrats want a change in party leadership.

If the party continues to stick with its weak, losing approach, Dems are unlikely to take back the House, expand  Senate seats, and resist the Trump administration, and instead repeat results like that of 2024, when about 59% of white working-class men voted for Trump, according to Harvard’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study. (In contrast, union members still align with the Democratic Party, according to Pew Research, which reported that 50% of them voted for Harris, and 43% for Trump.)

Trump’s win was no “mandate” – one of his favorite lies – since Trump had 77 million votes, and Harris had 75 million. But 89 million eligible voters didn’t cast ballots. The DNC must inspire turnout by advocating for and to people to improve individuals’ lives and the nation’s health.

“Randi Weingarten, Lee Saunders and David Hogg are critical voices in our party. They want a worker-centered agenda with trade schools and support for collective bargaining,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). “They have called for a new generation of leaders. We need to be a big tent party that includes them.”

The DNC’s heated debates need not be a meltdown.

Harold Meyerson, editor-at-large at The American Prospect magazine, wrote, “Democrats won’t win elections until they are in touch with working-class anger. It will be by someone in the mold of [Bernie] Sanders: calling out the authors of our discontent and charting some paths to viable working-class lives.”

Will public media go dark and silent?

Three weeks before the 4th of July, the House of Representatives voted 214-212 to take back $1.1 billion already approved for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private-public corporation that distributes grants to some 1,500 public radio and TV stations -- funding signed by President Trump in March.

But public media aren’t going away without a fight.

It’s a fight for survival.

Four House Republicans joined all Democrats to defend the promised funding, but not Illinois’ GOP Representatives. Darin LaHood, Mary Miller and Mike Bost all voted to take back the promised funds.

Illinois Congresswoman and Peoria native Nikki Budzinski (D-13th), said the rescission was “deeply concerning.

“These are commitments, whether it’s to PBS, whether it’s to supporting our communities through a whole host of initiatives that are now going to be rescinded,” she said. “The issue of why they’re trying to rescind this is they’re trying to save some money again to pay for their tax cuts that they’re giving to super rich people in this country that do not need them.”

Indeed, besides that take-back, Trump issued an Executive Order zeroing out public media funding, and the House’s separate “Big Beautiful Budget Bill” cutting public media funding awaits Senate action along with the rescission.

R.C. McBride, Executive Director of WCBU and also a National Public Radio (NPR) board member, said, “Rescission would immediately eliminate approximately $125,000 from WCBU’s annual budget.”

The White House and allies in the House accuse public media of bias. Trump said NPR and the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) are “radical left monsters,” which public media leaders dispute.

“I simply don’t accept the premise,” McBride said. “It’s just a talking point. Surveys and studies rank NPR among the country’s most trusted sources of news. It’s non-partisan, adheres to the strictest journalistic standards, and is regularly recognized for excellence by its peers. And our local team at WCBU can say the same. That’s not to say NPR is perfect – but when it makes mistakes it owns up to them, works to correct them, and constantly tries to improve.”

Opponents of public media also say it’s no longer needed with the number of other broadcasters, but supporters see PBS and NPR as public services that merit public support, not unlike public libraries, which endure efforts to censor them but weren’t abandoned just because Barnes & Noble and Amazon sell books.

Further, the commercial strength of news media has greatly weakened when the industry became increasingly owned by profit-focused hedge funds that have cut staff and stories after losing advertising to social media.

Supporters [full disclosure: my household donates to WCBU] also argue that it’s really part of the administration’s attempts to control information. Critics of independent journalism see reported facts that differ from their messaging or agenda as threats to be softened or silenced, and the White House already has intimidated ABC, CBS, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and even the Voice of America.

Foes of public media are against “Morning Edition,” “Nova,” “Fresh Air” interviews and “Sesame Street.”

Illinois’ Sen. Tammy Duckworth said, “They literally are attacking Elmo. The crazy thing is public broadcasting is often the main source of information in rural communities.”

Down the hill from WCBU’s studio, WTVP defends what it airs.

“Current scrutiny of public funding centers on concerns of bias in news programming, which makes up about 9% of what we air.  Our station is committed to producing content that is neutral and balanced,” commented WTVP CEO Jenn Gordon and Board Chair John Wieland in a joint statement. “WTVP has served our community for over 50 years because viewers spanning a wide range of demographics, ideologies and political persuasions, find content of the highest quality that educates, informs and inspires.”

Popular opinion is telling. Just 24% of American adults support eliminating public media funding, according to Pew Research.

How much taxpayer money is at stake?

“The funding structures for NPR and PBS are complicated, and much of their revenue comes from nongovernment sources like member donations and corporate sponsorships,” according to Pew. “But the proposed [budget] bill would ban all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which has received $535 million annually in recent federal budgets.”

Glynn Wilson from the New American Journal scoffs, writing, “That’s not even a drop in the bucket of the $1.6 trillion national budget, $895 billion for defense, and $711 billion in non-defense spending.”

Worldwide, the U.S. government is a public-media cheapskate, according to Michael Swerdlow of the Center for the Study of Responsive Law.

“The United States spends $3 per person, New Zealand spends $21, Canada spends $33, Australia $53, Japan spends $67, the U.K. spends $97, and Germany spends 41 times more, at $124.46,” Swerdlow reported. “The U.S. spends about $50 million more a year on our 136 military marching bands than the entire public broadcasting system.”

Although some court rulings on other issues have been ignored by the administration, NPR and three Colorado affiliates filed a federal lawsuit against the President, charging him with violating the First Amendment and asserting a power Presidents don’t have.

“We are choosing to do this as a matter of necessity and principle,” said NPR CEO Katherine Maher. “All of our rights that we enjoy in this democracy flow from the First Amendment: freedom of speech, association, freedom of the press. When we see those rights infringed upon, we have an obligation to challenge them.

“By basing its directives on the substance of NPR's programming, the Executive Order seeks to force NPR to adapt its journalistic standards and editorial choices to the preferences of the government if it is to continue to receive federal funding,” she continued. “This rescission proposal is the most serious threat ever faced by public broadcasting. We urge Congress to act in the interest of their constituents and save public broadcasting.”

A grassroots effort makes WTVP leaders optimistic.

“With such an effort to completely dismantle government funding, we’ve been encouraged by the number of people (1.3 million in the past three months in fact!) who have reached out to Congress urging them to keep funding in place for local stations like WTVP,” Wieland and Gordon said. “We are optimistic that Congress will act based on the values and priorities of their constituents and vote to keep federal funding. To everyone who does value what we do, and has not yet reached out to Congress, we encourage them to go today to www.protectmypublicmedia.org and make their voices heard.”

McBride added, “I’m concerned about the yet unseen and difficult to predict mid- and long-term impacts losing funding will have on the public system as a whole. It stands to reason that if stations elsewhere collapse or consolidate or cut national programs, the scale of the system will be reduced, and that could make things much more expensive for everyone else.

“Defeating this bill is going to be difficult. We must be loud and persistent.”

Thinking of another Independence Day, the 1996 movie, one imagines public media’s staff and audience, using that film’s President Whitmore riffing on Dylan Thomas when he says, “We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive!”