WATCH LIVE: Tomi Lahren breaks down implications of varying definitions of democracy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security's 90th anniversary is marked by funding threats and privatization talk
WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law 90 years ago this week, he vowed it would provide economic stability to older people while giving the U.S. "an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.' Today, the program provides benefits to almost 69 million Americans monthly. It's a major source of income for people over 65 and is popular across the country and political lines. It also looks more threatened than ever. Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential 'Ponzi scheme." Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Here's a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program. The go-broke date has been moved up The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year's estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded. The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers. Republicans' new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 'They haven't laid out an idea to fix it yet," he said. The privatization conversation has been revived The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed ' Trump accounts ' may serve as a ' backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments. The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush's White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. 'We will have to make a choice," Hubbard said. 'If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we're going to have to raise everyone's taxes a lot. And if that's what people want, that's a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on." Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time. 'It's really a political choice,' he said, adding 'Neither one of those is pain free." Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government. Martin O'Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper. "There is no openness and there is no transparency' at the agency, he said. 'And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.' A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a request for comment. Concerns persist An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but aren't confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire. 'So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,' said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded. 'In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,' she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change. Some call for shrinking the program Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump's second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age. Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account. She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear. 'When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don't have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts for everybody,' Greszler said. 'We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.' Fatima Hussein, The Associated Press Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
UPI
7 minutes ago
- UPI
Volodymyr Zelensky meets Keir Starmer in Britain ahead of U.S.-Russia summit
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (L) gives a very warm welcome to President Volodymyr Zelensky outside 10 Downing Street in London on Thursday morning as the Ukrainian leader arrived for talks ahead of a landmark U.S.-Russia summit that could decide his country's fate. Photo by Tolga Akmen/EPA Aug. 14 (UPI) -- British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Downing Street on Thursday to maintain the momentum of a European push to influence a summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The high-profile meeting between the British and Ukrainian leaders, reported by the BBC, Sky News and The Telegraph, was described as a carefully choreographed display of support timed for just hours before the historic U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, which Zelensky was left out of. Neither man commented nor provided any details of their discussion when the pair emerged from No. 10 after around 60 minutes. The London talks came as the Kremlin confirmed "resolving the Ukraine crisis" would be the main focus of the summit and that the delegation headed by Putin would include top aide Yuri Ushakov, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and Russian sovereign wealth fund CEO Kirill Dmitriev. Co-chairing a meeting of European leaders, Zelensky and Trump on Wednesday, Starmer said a cease-fire between Russia and Ukraine was a "viable" outcome from what he called Friday's "hugely important" meeting, but stressed Ukraine's "territorial integrity" must be defended and international borders "must not be changed by force". "As I've said personally to President Trump for the three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on, we haven't got anywhere near a prospect of actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire," said Starmer. "And now we do have that chance, because of the work the president has put in." However, Starmer said any cease-fire would have to be lasting and therefore needed "robust and credible security guarantees" and that European allies had established "this Coalition of the Willing" to back a post-war Ukraine militarily, with troops if necessary, to preempt Russia from breaking any peace agreement. The bloc backed Zelensky's demand that no decisions be made without Ukraine at the table. Trump emerged from the meeting to put Putin on notice he would face "severe consequences" if he did not agree to a cease-fire when the pair meet in Anchorage on Friday. Trump said that, provided the meeting went well, he would also seek a second meeting between Putin and Zelensky to hammer out the details of a peace deal.
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
Meeting Putin in Alaska, Trump risks a catastrophic defeat
History is chasing President Trump and, come tomorrow, one way or the other, it will find him in Alaska. Many observers warn that his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin could be as globally catastrophic as British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's was with Nazi Chancellor Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938. Or it could be worse. Team Trump has the benefit of history as a guide. The next 50 to 100 years of U.S.-Russia relations will likely be determined by how well or how badly Trump knows that history. Chamberlain's failure at appeasing Hitler is the obvious lesson. But the other lesson, considerably more nuanced, was his unforgiveable negligence in not giving Czechoslovakia or Poland a seat at the negotiating table. Trump is now repeating this same mistake by excluding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The White House's excuse is that Putin requested the meeting. By weakly omitting Zelensky, Trump is recklessly making his own mistake far greater than Chamberlain's original sin at Munich. Ukraine today, unlike Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1938, has established itself as a bulwark against future Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. If Putin wins, then not only will Ukraine be lost, but Poland, Moldova, Finland and the Baltic States — especially the strategic Suwalki Gap — will be, to put it in military terms, perilously at risk. Team Trump would be wise to view Putin's machinations as akin to a dystopian invasion of Alaska. Ditto the entire West. Putin's Foreign Ministry made it clear Wednesday that he is not backing down from his maximalist demands, which would end Ukrainian independence. With this meeting, he is trying once again to win from Team Trump what he has not been able to win in three-and-a-half years of war. Russian evil, as embodied by Putin's ongoing genocide against Ukraine, war crimes and crimes against humanity, will have won out over the notion of core American values of freedom and liberty. In MacBeth-like terms, this dystopia would end up where American fair is foul and Russian foul is fair. If Putin bests Trump in Alaska, it will also result a decisive economic victory by Putin over Trump. The Donbas is estimated to have more than 50 percent of Ukraine's rare earth minerals, with a potential economic value of $5.75 trillion. Those funds are needed for Ukraine to repay the U.S. and to rebuild after the war. Recent Kremlin gains, including an ongoing Russian ground breakout in Donetsk earlier this week, are already putting more and more of those Ukrainian rare earth deposits on Putin's side of the battle lines. Western Europe is highly alarmed. Not only is Team Trump giving Ukraine the cold shoulder in Alaska, but they are also icing out London and Brussels from any meaningful participation in events that will directly affect their short- and long-term national security. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is not having it. He met with Zelensky on Wednesday, and the two leaders agreed Ukraine should have the right to join NATO and that Kyiv will not withdraw from the Donbas. Team Trump cannot expect its European NATO allies to take more ownership of their defense — including upping military spending to 5 percent of GDP to confront a growing Russian threat — while at the same time arguing that Washington has the right to unilaterally negotiate Ukraine and Eastern Europe's future with Putin. Rather than keeping Ukraine on the same page, Trump is again resorting to form and criticizing Zelensky in order to buy favor with Putin ahead of the negotiations — and just as Putin planned. On Tuesday, by disinviting Zelensky, the White House gave Putin an easy win. Earlier on Monday, Trump slammed Zelensky for insisting that Ukraine would not swap any territory with Russia to end the war. He also heavily criticized Zelensky for claiming he could not do so even if he wanted, given that Ukraine's constitution requires Ukraine's parliament to vote on it. Vice President JD Vance had gone even further. He asserted on Fox News Sunday morning that the U.S. is done directly funding the war in Ukraine. As if an exclamation mark, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued an order that allows the return of U.S. weapons and ammunition stationed in Europe that had been intended for Ukraine's use. In stark contrast, Putin's team is on the same page with their their BRICS trading partners and their 'Axis of Evil' allies, China, Iran and North Korea. Team Trump is dividing and conquering itself, while Team Putin is ideologically invading the 49th state. The result is great harm to our Indo-Pacific and NATO allies. Putin has already banked multiple symbolic wins. For example, in Russia, for some time now, there has been a growing movement to argue that the U.S. illegally gained control of Alaska. One favorite revisionist narrative is that its sale was only a lease, and that the U.S. government fraudulently forged the treaty to make it a permanent land transfer. By allowing Putin to plant his flag on Alaskan soil is to play to the Russian narrative. The Kremlin will use the trip for maximum propaganda purposes. Never mind that Putin is a wanted war criminal currently under indictment by the International Criminal Court. Russian dystopia is not a good destination. Not for our country nor for our people. Team Trump frequently touts that they always put America first. If so, come Friday, that means putting Putin last. Trump still has home field advantage, and it's not over until it's over. He must make clear that Washington will not allow Ukraine to be defeated by Putin, nor will we abandon our NATO allies in the face of current and future Russian aggression.
