Eastern States Exposition leaders receive Patriot Award for military support
A representative from the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) visited the Eastern States Exposition last Friday to present Cassidy and Ramirez with the award. The Patriot Award is bestowed upon employers who support military employees by offering flexible schedules and time off based on deployment.
Holyoke unveils mural downtown to honor community leader
Ramirez and Cassidy were nominated by ESE's Sergeant of Safety and Security, Christopher Thompson. Thompson has served in the military for over 28 years, with experience in both the Navy and Air Force.
'I want to thank you for putting my name in for nomination,' Cassidy said. 'Eastern States Exposition does not conscientiously think about these things. We do it by nature. In my office, I have a trophy that was once presented to our founder, Joshua Loring Brooks, in 1919, because of what he did to support the war efforts during the First World War. So, the history of Eastern States Exposition is not lost on me now.'
During the reception, Cassidy signed a statement of support to affirm his continued commitment to actively serving military and veterans, which will be displayed in the Brooks Building on the ESE grounds.
The Eastern States Exposition offers Military Appreciation Day on the first day of The Big E every year, granting free admission to all active-duty and retired military personnel and their dependents. Resources are provided throughout the fair for counseling, benefits, medical treatment, and other essentials. This year, Military Appreciation Day will be on September 12.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Nearly two million more casualties': The numbers that show Russia is years from victory
Donald Trump's message – or rather, the message he transmitted from Vladimir Putin – to Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on Monday was stark: accept the deal Russia is offering, because otherwise you'll lose the war. But if Moscow appears strong now, Ukraine and its European allies believe, it's partly because Trump's choices have made it stronger – namely, his decisions to curtail US military aid, interrupt intelligence sharing and, above all, accept Putin's insistence on a peace deal before a ceasefire. And in fact, Russia is far from battlefield supremacy. Just hours before the Oval Office discussions, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared it would take 4.4 years of fighting at current rates of advance for Russia to capture the remainder of territory it has 'annexed'. It would also, according to the MoD calculations based on Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties, cost Russia an additional 1.93m killed and wounded to achieve Putin's goals. That would be on top of the more than one million casualties it has already sustained. In other words, Russia could be headed for breaking points of its own. How long can Russia last? All of which raises the question, if Trump chose to throw his weight behind Ukraine, could he change the tide? Should the US president be asking not how much Ukraine must surrender, but how long Russia can last? Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, points to two potential Russian breaking points: the military and the economic. Predictions about when either will come has become something of a mug's game, he cautions. Nor should we underestimate Russia's capacity to keep going. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point: there are strains on the economy. There are strains on the military. A breaking point will come,' he says. 'Because Trump is in a hurry, Putin has the ability to sort of shift that sense of emergency, so that, all of a sudden, it feels like this sort of political breaking point for the West – whereas, if there was a little bit more strategic patience and consistency from the White House, the opposite would actually be true.' The British Defence Intelligence assessment about the Russian rate of advance is meant for public consumption rather than real strategic analysis. Applying the same crude logic to British military performance in the First World War, one might have said in early 1918 that the Allies were decades from victory. By the end of that year, Germany had suffered a devastating defeat, and arguing about rates of advance and attrition in the previous four years were not much use to German negotiators at armistice talks. 'The problem is, wars are not linear,' points out Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert in the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. Nor are they boxing matches to be decided on points. Nonetheless, Russia's advance is indeed painfully slow. Even a recent 10-mile infiltration near Dobropillia, while initially alarming for Ukraine, failed to achieve an operational breakthrough. It ended instead with hundreds of Russians being captured or killed. 'Limitless manpower is a myth' In the Oval Office, the US president led Zelensky over to an easel holding a large map of Ukraine showing the current line of control. The implication: to stop the conflict, the map will have to be redrawn. There was little progress on Monday, however, partly because Zelensky and his allies see that map in a very different way. Speaking after the talks Emmanuel Macron said that in the past 1,000 days of war Russian forces 'took less than one per cent' of Ukrainian territory. 'Those who are saying… 'The Ukrainians are lost. They will lose'. It's total fake news,' the French president said. As the Institute for the Study of War has pointed out, Russian forces are currently struggling to complete the encirclement or envelopment of Kupyansk despite 22 months of offensive operations. It took them 14 months to cover the 6.4 miles from the eastern to western outskirts of Toretsk, and 26 months to advance 6.8 miles from western Bakhmut to the western edge of Chasiv Yar. And yes, says Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and veteran watcher of the Russian military, it is true to say that Russia faces increasing risk as the war goes on. 'The question is not how much territory is Russia gaining per day. The only question that's actually being tested in the fighting in 2024 and 2025 is which proposition is more likely to be true: is Russia able to sustain its offensive effort and eventually put Ukraine in an untenable position? Or is Ukrainian defence more viable and more likely to exhaust Russian offensive potential, if not this year then next?' he says. 'This is what both parties are looking at to try to inform their decision on the questions of how much time they have and whether they can hope to attain a better and different outcome.' At the moment, Kofman says, time seems to favour Russia. Ukraine is not facing either imminent defeat or a collapse of the front line that would force it to sign a humiliating surrender, but the Russians are accelerating. Year-on-year, their pace of advance has picked up in 2025 compared to 2024. And while Ukraine has serious problems with manpower, Russia still has a steady supply of men to replace battlefield losses, which, according to Britain's Defence Intelligence, currently stand at 1,060,000, including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. The recent Russian infiltration at Dobropillia shows that Ukraine's drone units, despite their remarkable effectiveness, cannot stabilise the front alone in the absence of sufficient infantry. For now, however, the Russians are struggling to translate their dominance in infantry into decisive advantage. 'Russia's vulnerability is simply that they are far too slow and they don't have the force quality, nor do they employ the tactics, to achieve a major breakthrough. So their overall approach is deeply inefficient and costly in terms of manpower,' says Kofman. 'The political leadership doesn't care about this, but Russia does not have limitless manpower either – that's a myth. It also does not have limitless time. That's another myth.' Russia 'on the verge of recession' There are other constraints on Russia too, Kofman argues. 'The reality is that the war is a significant strain on the Russian economy. Despite outwardly projecting the ability and willingness to keep fighting for many more years, if the war enters 2026 and Russia doesn't appear to be winning decisively on the battlefield, it is eminently unclear that they, too, will not run into significant sustainability problems that could force them to a much weaker negotiating position,' he says. That explains why Putin may be keen to seal a deal now: he feels comparatively strong, but knows the moment of apparent dominance may not last. For two years, Russia's economy appeared to defy gravity, turning massive military spending into rapid GDP growth despite Western sanctions. But the sugar high appears to be over. And the signs of the comedown are everywhere. In June, Maxim Reznikov, the minister of economic development of the Russian Federation, warned the St Petersburg economic forum that the country was 'on the verge of recession'. The following month, the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, the country's second largest steel producer, reported a 21.1 per cent collapse in profits and a sharp drop in output that it attributed to high interest rates and a general slowdown in the Russian economy. Indeed, at the end of July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cut its 2025 growth estimate for Russia to 0.9 per cent, down from an initial 1.5 per cent forecast it made in April. Even that was a dramatic drop from the 4.3 per cent growth the IMF estimated in 2024. And inflation has prompted the ministries of agriculture and of trade and industry to draft a law for price caps on vegetables, poultry and dairy products, according to a report in Kommersant, a Russian business daily, earlier this month. 'The economy is an interesting thing because there's an objective standpoint to it, which is, frankly, that they do have considerable fiscal and monetary headroom, and they remain very good at managing the economy, albeit at increasing cost,' says Greene. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point.' 'If you remember back to January, the very last thing the Biden administration did was to impose some new sanctions, somewhat unexpectedly, on the Russians. And that sent Russian markets into a tailspin for two or three weeks. If the West were interested in manufacturing those sorts of moments of unpredictability, then it would bring some very real risks, including near-term risks, for the Russian economy.' 'They're playing with fire' None of these factors mean Russia is facing imminent collapse, says Ian Bond, deputy director for the London-based Centre for European Reform. There is no sign that the casualty rate or the economic strains of the war have created any kind of serious domestic political challenge to Putin so far. 'But Russia is strong until it's not. It looks mighty, and then mental fatigue sets in, and things fall apart quite quickly,' he says. 'Is that going to happen this time? We simply don't know,' Bond adds. But, he argues, it is a reason for Europe and Ukraine to resist acquiescing to a bad deal – like surrendering Donbas – that would leave them much more vulnerable. These are the considerations that Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders will be weighing up as Trump shepherds them into more negotiations in the coming weeks. In the final analysis, 'war is very much an uncertain business, and even though some things may be in Russia's favour, there's a great deal of uncertainty', says Kofman. 'And keep in mind the external factors: at the end of the day, much for Russia depends on things, like the price of oil, that they can neither predict nor control. The longer things go on, the more they're playing with fire.' Solve the daily Crossword
CNBC
6 days ago
- CNBC
Social Security marks its 90th anniversary — here's what could happen to future benefits
Ninety years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, which created the program that now sends monthly benefit checks to millions of Americans, including retirees, disabled individuals and families. But by the time the program celebrates its centennial, benefits may not look the same as today's Social Security payments. The reason: Social Security's trust funds, which the program relies on to help pay benefits, are facing a looming shortfall. Starting in 2033 — two years before its 100th anniversary — the program may only be able to pay 77% of scheduled benefits for retirees, their families and survivors, Social Security's trustees projected in an annual report released in June. However, should those funds be combined with Social Security's trust fund for disability benefits, as has happened in prior emergencies, payments may be cut one year later, in 2034. At that point, 81% of scheduled benefits would be payable, Social Security's trustees project. Importantly, Social Security benefits would not disappear entirely. The program would still have ongoing income from payroll taxes to help fund benefit payments. That scenario is not inevitable. Changes to the program may be enacted sooner to shore up its funding and prevent sudden benefit cuts. Most, 83%, of surveyed Americans think Social Security reform should be a top priority for Congress, even if it means benefit cuts or tax increases for future beneficiaries, according to a new poll from the Bipartisan Policy Center's American Savings Education Council. The group polled more than 4,000 adults. "This is the time for action," said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, who is among the lawmakers pitching a plan to help restore the program's solvency, told Cassidy has teamed up with Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia., to co-lead a bipartisan pitch — the centerpiece of which is a new $1.5 trillion investment fund for Social Security, separate from Social Security's current trust funds. The initial $1.5 trillion outlay would be borrowed. Because the money would be held in escrow and could be liquified, it would not increase the national debt, Cassidy said. The funds would be invested more aggressively than Social Security's current trust funds, which are invested in U.S. Treasury securities. Because those investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, they are secure. However, the average rate of return over a one-year period was around 2.5% in 2024. In contrast, the S&P 500 has returned an annual average of around 10%, though those results vary from year to year. Investing the proposed separate investment fund in stocks, bonds and other investments could cover an estimated 70% of Social Security's trust fund shortfall, Cassidy said. That would make it much more doable for lawmakers to address the remaining 30%, he said. The senators' plan does not include any benefit cuts or tax increases for seniors, Cassidy said. It would provide benefit increases for two cohorts — beneficiaries age 80 and older who are at less than 200% of the federal poverty level, and low earners who have a long work history earning low wages. Lawmakers could consider increasing the size of the investment fund to help cover the rest of the shortfall, he said. Rights to manage the fund would be left to a bidding process, which could result in lower fees and higher returns, Cassidy said. Critics, including Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., have said investing in other securities as the senators' plan suggests would privatize Social Security and therefore threaten Americans' retirement security. In response, Cassidy points to the federal Railroad Retirement system, which in 2001 moved from investing solely in government bonds to more aggressive instruments, including stocks. That change was approved by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and has helped the program operate with a positive balance today. Still, some experts are dubious. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said while he applauded the first bipartisan plan to fix Social Security in two decades, he questions whether the plan could work. Among the concerns he details are the amount of money that the plan requires the government to borrow, as well as the increased investment risk that would be required without a guarantee of higher returns. Cassidy and Kaine are not the only lawmakers looking at potential solutions to solve Social Security's dilemma. Larson has a plan that has been reintroduced in multiple sessions of Congress that would provide benefit increases while increasing taxes on the wealthy. The last time Social Security was meaningfully enhanced was in 1971 under President Richard Nixon, Larson said in an interview with More than 5 million Americans currently receive below poverty-level checks from Social Security, according to Larson. Larson's most recent proposal from 2023 would temporarily increase benefits for all beneficiaries, while also providing specific enhancements for those receiving minimum benefits; widows or widowers in two-income households; and children of deceased, disabled or retired workers who are full-time students. The plan also proposes changing the way annual cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. To pay for those benefit increases, Larson's plan calls for income over $400,000 to be subject to payroll taxes. In 2025, workers stop contributing to Social Security for the year once they reach an income of $176,100. Both employers and employees pay a 6.2% tax on wages up to that threshold. More from Personal Finance:Social Security cost-of-living adjustment may be 2.7% in 2026'Big beautiful' bill does not eliminate taxes on Social Security benefitsHow having a 'bridge' strategy can help Social Security claiming The Bipartisan Policy Center poll finds a majority of Americans support lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes, with 65% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans. That includes a "significant majority" of respondents with annual household incomes over $200,000, according to the results. Larson's plan also called for a separate 12.4% tax on net investment income for taxpayers making over $400,000. Larson plans to reintroduce his plan in the current session of Congress with some tweaks. "We'll be rolling out a presentation in September that will include not only protecting Social Security, but also enhancing it," Larson said. The plan will also make it Congress' responsibility to act more frequently to help ensure benefits continue to meet individuals' needs, he said. "I think that that's got to be paramount to keeping this in check," Larson said. Larson plans to push for a vote on his bill. But he also wants an open debate. "There has to be a public discussion," Larson said. Most Americans — 64% of Democratic voters and 61% of Republicans — want Congress to work together across party lines to reform Social Security, the Bipartisan Policy Center found in its recent poll. That's as 41% of surveyed Americans expect Social Security will be their primary source of income in retirement, according to the BPC. Moreover, 74% of Americans worry Social Security will run out before they retire, while 80% worry Congress will cut benefits. Nevertheless, the poll results show Americans would welcome a "comprehensive, balanced reform package that entails both benefit adjustments and tax increases," said Emerson Sprick, director of retirement and labor policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% to help repair the program's finances had the most support among BPC's poll respondents, with 85% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans. That's in contrast to the 65% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans who support a higher cap on payroll taxes. A majority of voters also support adjusting benefits for those most in need, with 63% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans; reducing benefits for higher income individuals, with 64% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans; and increasing the amount that both employees and employers pay into the program, with 61% of both Democrats and Republicans. Most voters also support encouraging legal immigration that would result in more workers paying into the program, with 64% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans. The urgency of addressing Social Security's funding woes will increase over time. Two new laws have provided generous enhancements for certain Social Security beneficiaries. The Social Security Fairness Act increased benefits for some public pensioners, while President Donald Trump's "big beautiful" budget and tax package provides a tax deduction for seniors. The changes in both laws will accelerate the trust fund depletion dates. The Fairness Act was included the Social Security trustees' latest projections. The more recent "big beautiful" legislation will move the insolvency date for the retirement trust fund to late 2032 up from the early 2033 trustees' projection, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Senators who are elected in 2026 will be in office during those projected depletion deadlines, Sprick said. As the trust fund depletion dates come closer, there will be more discussion about Social Security's future on Capitol Hill, Sprick said. The current proposals on Capitol Hill are a start, he said. "We've put this off for way too long; the political process moves very slowly," Sprick said. "But that does not negate the fact that these conversations are moving in the right direction."
Axios
13-08-2025
- Axios
Spicy Senate fight
President Trump has added an unsolicited, high-profile confirmation fight to the Senate's plate when they're back from August recess. Why it matters: With a 140+ person backlog on civilian confirmations, Senate Republicans left Washington vowing to fast-track the rules. Senate GOP leaders told senators to be ready to move as soon as they return to D.C. in September, sources familiar tell us. Senators have suggested everything from shorter debate time to allowing more nominees to be voted on en bloc. 🌶 But the newest nominee's a doozy: Trump said yesterday he'll nominate Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics after he fired Erika McEntarfer. Zoom in: Antoni's confirmation process will first have to go through the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee which is chaired by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) Cassidy called McEntarfer's removal"understandable," and he had previously demanded answers as to why BLS's jobs reports were inaccurate. He's also up for re-election next year. But HELP includes frequent Trump critics: Sens. Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). "BLS's years-long failure to produce reliable data — especially when that data has broad market-moving implications — is unacceptable," a Cassidy spokesperson told Axios. "Cassidy looks forward to meeting with Dr. Antoni to discuss how he will accomplish this."
