Gov. Hochul and Gas Pipelines
Regarding Bryce Chinault and Andrew Fowler's 'Connecticut Asks Congress to 'Rethink the Jones Act'' (Cross Country, Feb. 22): Good for Gov. Ned Lamont for trying to get Congress to amend or eliminate the Jones Act. He might consider another fix: Ask New York Gov. Hochul and others in Albany to allow new natural-gas pipelines to be constructed across New York so gas could be delivered to all states in the Northeast. Simplistic environmental policies are blocking needed natural gas, forcing many homes and businesses to use oil for heating.
Joe Visalli
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Social Security Privatization Could Change the Role of IRAs in Your Portfolio
If Social Security privatization ever becomes a reality, workers will take on a much larger role in preparing for retirement. IRAs would likely become a staple in more investor portfolios following privatization. The financial know-how required to make the most of investing could become a by-product of privatization. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security privatization refers to a proposal that shifts the current government-run system to one where a portion of the money you normally pay in Social Security taxes would be diverted to a personal investment account that you would be responsible for managing. The goal is to allow Americans to maximize Social Security dollars. Although the idea has been around for decades, it's taken on new heat as some worry DOGE cuts to the Social Security Administration (SSA) are the first steps in forcing privatization. There's no denying that saving for retirement as we know it would change if Social Security were ever privatized. Also impacted would be the value we put on other methods of savings, like individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Here's how some of those changes might present themselves. There's nothing like the knowledge that your Social Security benefits aren't going to be as much as expected to inspire you to find another way to build retirement savings. Chances are, IRAs will become even more critical as a primary vehicle for saving, helping you bridge the gap between income needs and resources. Some may make IRAs their primary retirement funding source, as IRAs tend to provide more investment options than 401(k)s and other employer-sponsored retirement plans. If lawmakers do ever decide the current Social Security system needs an overhaul, there's a good chance they'll at least discuss increasing IRA contribution limits as a way for individual investors to bolster their retirement funds. While they're at it, Congress could consider enhancing catch-up options for older workers. IRAs offer such a wide range of investment options, you may base your investment decisions on what works best in tandem with other investment types, like a 401(k) and annuities. It's easier to come up with a balanced portfolio when you spread assets across several investment types. For example, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan that's heavy on higher-growth assets like stocks or real estate, you may want to balance those with a bond-heavy IRA. The point is, no matter how your specific investment strategy works, IRAs give you one more tool to work with. Even if you've been investing for years, don't be surprised if taking greater control of investment decisions leads to a higher level of financial literacy and a deeper knowledge of how to make the most of an IRA. As you take on more responsibility for retirement savings, there's likely to be a heightened focus on financial education, investment options, and how to make the most of strategic withdrawals. In addition, it's possible your employer will get on board by providing you with easier access to financial advisors and resources – a move sure to add to your knowledge base. For the casual investor (particularly a new investor), the focus is often on short-term gains. However, knowing that your Social Security benefits will be less than expected may be enough to turn your focus to long-term growth instead. In turn, depending on your age, you may find that you have a larger appetite for taking risks with IRA investments to make up for any shortfalls in Social Security. As mentioned, it's also possible that an IRA will be your "safe space" -- a place to invest in lower-risk assets. No matter how you use it, it's likely that it will be with an eye on the future. With the knowledge that you're making up for lost Social Security benefits, you could decide to integrate annuities into your IRA. Annuities can be a good way to create steady, predictable income that complements other retirement investments. In short, if Social Security privatization ever comes to pass, it's a good bet that IRAs will become an even more important part of the average investor's portfolio. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. How Social Security Privatization Could Change the Role of IRAs in Your Portfolio was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
36 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Regarding the US bombing of Iran, war does not lead to peace
As a young boy, I remember hearing of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor over the radio on Sunday afternoon, Dec. 7, 1941. 'A date that will live in infamy,' President Franklin Delano Roosevelt later told the nation. Now, over 80 years later, June 21, 2025, I have a similar and surely more mature feeling of shock and dismay. Without being attacked, without a declaration of war, our president has chosen to enter this unending conflict in the Middle East. And he has declared that 'now is the time for peace.' Japanese Emperor Hirohito was not delusional enough to say such a thing after the surprise attack on the U.S. fleet. War does not lead to peace. It certainly did not in Vietnam or in Iraq. 'For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.' How many of our children and grandchildren will discover this as the Middle East conflict continues with our involvement and complicity? May God forgive us and have mercy on our souls. And on the soul of President Bill Clinton authorized NATO to bomb Serbia for several months in 1999, a necessary move to stop Belgrade from the killings in Kosovo, he did not do it with authority from Congress. In 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered the execution of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, he didn't go through Congress. What he did was rely on a 2001 law passed by Congress called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to act against terrorism. Now, as to the bold bombings in Iran, it could be argued the AUMF doesn't apply, because Iran hasn't terrorized the United States, but that isn't true. We lost service members in 1983 in Beirut, thanks to Iran's proxy Hezbollah, and not that long ago in Iraq, too, by direct Iranian action. The repercussions are anyone's guess, and that was true in 2011 when some feared what bin Laden's assassination would provoke. Yet regardless of the opposition to U.S. intervention in Iran from the isolationists and progressives — who wouldn't dare claim Iran's nuclear program is peaceful — was President Donald Trump overstepping his legal boundaries? Probably difficult for me to understand why some members of Congress think that President Donald Trump needed congressional approval to bomb Iran's nuclear-enriching plant sites. Some have even gone so far as to suggest his action might be considered an impeachable act. This is ridiculous! The president has the power to take whatever action he or she deems necessary to protect American interests. Moreover, it's my understanding that key members of Congress were briefed ahead of the actions. No doubt Congress has a right to challenge the president to explain his reasoning, and if further action is required, he must seek congressional approval. So, let's stop wasting time trying to claim that Trump exceeded his authority and concentrate on the more important question: Where do we go from here?So we commit an act of war without congressional approval by bombing Iran. Now the world clearly sees that we are no better than Vladimir Putin and Russia. And by the way, when will this Congress grow a backbone?Is President Donald Trump so stupid that he didn't realize by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, he is bringing the U.S. closer to a nuclear war? Our enemies in the Far East are just waiting for a reason to attack the U.S. North Korea could see this attack on Iran as an golden opportunity to attack the U.S. by allying with Iran. Am I the only one who thinks that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's goal is to dominate the Middle East? He has destroyed Gaza and killed thousands of Muslims. He is now focusing his attention on tensions between Israel and Iran reach dangerous new levels, the United States must confront the consequences of its growing military involvement. The U.S. participating in strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — on behalf of Israel — and claiming 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear program without providing evidence are deeply troubling. Such actions don't promote peace; they incentivize nuclear proliferation. Iran, once a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, now has every reason to believe that nuclear weapons are the only way to deter attacks. That logic mirrors what we've seen in North Korea, a country far more volatile and dangerous — yet untouched militarily — precisely because it already has nuclear weapons. Our current approach sends a disturbing message to the world: If you don't want to be bombed, develop a nuclear arsenal. This is not security policy — it's an arms race blueprint. And with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubling down on military solutions, we must ask: What country will Israel target next? Lebanon? Syria? Turkey? Iraq? At what point will any American administration say: Enough is enough? Unquestioned U.S. support for Israel's most aggressive actions is not sustainable. It risks dragging us into wider regional conflict, undermines global nonproliferation goals and destabilizes diplomatic progress for generations to come. We are not just enabling war — we are normalizing it. The American public deserves better than vague justifications and open-ended entanglements. It's time to demand clarity, accountability and, above all, the editorial 'US bombs fall in Iran' (June 22): The Tribune Editorial Board would have 'preferred' congressional involvement in the act-of-war bombing of Iranian nuclear sites? The board does recall that the Constitution requires an act of Congress to declare war? The board does understand that we are now at war with Iran without such an act of Congress, regardless of President Donald Trump's desire for 'peace' (unconditional surrender)? Trump intends to supersede any constitutional limit on his powers, and this act is only the latest of his efforts to do so. Something stronger than the board's preference is wrote the editorial on President Donald Trump's bombing attack of Iran? 'We would have preferred the President had given more time to diplomacy. … We prefer that the President of the United States keep his word. And we would have preferred the involvement of Congress.' 'Prefer'? What a juvenile, anemic word to describe this rogue president's action! And when the board describes Israel wanting regime change, given Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's repression of women, his stealing of elections, his meeting of dissent with violence and his denouncement of opposing voices, does the board not see parallels to what is happening here in America? So bomb and say this is the time for peace? Why don't all the rich potentates, sheiks, oligarchs and MAGA dictators meet and fix it? Leave the innocents, the children, the ones who just want to live a simple life, out of the bombing and destruction. This president creates more hate every day.
Axios
43 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: An AI Marshall Plan
If politics and public debate were a rational, fact-based exercise, the government, business and the media would be obsessed with preparation for the unfolding AI revolution — rather than ephemeral outrage eruptions. Why it matters: That's not how Washington works. So while CEOs, Silicon Valley and a few experts inside government see AI as an opportunity, and threat, worthy of a modern Marshall Plan, most of America — and Congress — shrugs. One common question: What can we actually do, anyway? A lot. We've talked to scores of CEOs, government officials and AI executives over the past few months. Based on those conversations, we pieced together specific steps the White House, Congress, businesses and workers could take now to get ahead of the high-velocity change that's unspooling. None requires regulation or dramatic shifts. All require vastly more political and public awareness, and high-level AI sophistication. 1. A global American-led AI super-alliance: President Trump, like President Biden before him, sees beating China to superhuman AI as an existential battle. Trump opposes regulations that would risk America's early lead in the AI race. Congress agrees. So lots of CEOs and AI experts are mystified about why Trump has alienated allies, including Canada and Europe, who could help form a super-alliance of like-minded countries that play by America's AI rules and strengthen our supply chain for vital AI ingredients like rare earth minerals. Imagine America, Canada, all of Europe, Australia, much of the Middle East, parts of Africa and South America — and key Asian nations like Japan, South Korea and India — all aligned against China in this AI battle. The combination of AI rules, supply-chain ingredients, and economic activity would form a formidable pro-American AI bloc. 2. A domestic Marshall Plan: The Marshall Plan was America's commitment to rebuild Europe from the ruins of World War II. Now, the U.S. needs unfathomable amounts of data, chips, energy and infrastructure to produce AI. Trump has cut deals with companies and foreign countries — and cleared away some regulations — to expedite a lot of this. But there's been little sustained public discussion about what this means for the economy and U.S. jobs. It's very improvisational. Trump himself barely mentions AI or talks about it in any specificity in private. The country really needs "a combination of the Marshall Plan, the GI Bill, the New Deal — the social programs and international aid efforts needed to make AI work for the U.S. domestically and globally," as Scott Rosenberg, Axios managing editor for tech, puts it. One smart idea: Get the federal government better aligned with states and even schools to prepare the country and workforce in advance. Some states — including Texas — are eagerly working with AI companies to meet rising demand in these new areas. Yet many others are sitting it out. Imagine all states exploiting this moment and refashioning post-high-school education and job training programs. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Josh Shapiro — a possible Democratic presidential candidate in '28 — sees the opening. He hailed "the largest private sector investment in Pennsylvania history" earlier this month when he personally announced that Amazon Web Services plans to spend $20 billion on data center complexes in his state. 3. A congressional kill switch: There's no appetite in Washington to regulate artificial intelligence, mainly out of fear China would then beat the U.S. to the most important technological advance in history. But that doesn't mean Congress needs to ignore or downplay AI's potential and risks. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, got rich as an early investor in an earlier tech boom — cell phones — and has been one of Capitol Hill's few urgent voices on AI. "If we're serious about outcompeting China," Warner told us, "we need clear controls on advanced AI chips and strong investments in workforce training, research and development." Several lawmakers and AI experts envision a preemptive move: Create a bipartisan, bicameral special committee, much like one stood up from the 1940s through the 1970s to monitor nuclear weapons. This committee, in theory, could do four things, all vital to advancing public (and congressional) awareness: Monitor, under top-secret clearance, the various large language models (LLMs) before they're released to fully understand their capabilities. Prepare Congress and the public, ahead of time, for looming effects on specific jobs or industries. Gain absolute expertise and fluency in the latest LLMs and AI technologies, and educate other members of Congress on a regular basis. Provide extra sets of eyes and scrutiny on models that pose risks of operating outside of human control in coming years. This basically creates another break-in-case-of-emergency lever beyond the companies themselves, and White House and defense officials with special top-secret clearance. 4. A CEO AI surge: Anthropic's Dario Amodei told Axios that half of entry-level, white-collar jobs could be gone in a few years because of AI. Almost every CEO tells us they're slowing or freezing hiring across many departments, where AI is expected to displace humans. CEOs, better educated on AI, could help workers in two big ways: Provide deep instruction, free access and additional training to help each person use AI to vastly increase proficiency and productivity. This retraining/upskilling effort would be expensive, but a meaningful way for well-off people and organizations to show leadership. Get more clever leaders thinking now about new business lines AI might open up, creating jobs in new areas to make up for losses elsewhere. A few CEOs suggested they see a social obligation to ease the transition, especially if government fails to act.
