Being Speaker of the House with an extraordinarily slim majority is a really tough job. You have to cut deals because you have no other capacity to get anything done. That’s because given the fact there is a one-vote “motion to vacate” rule that is in place in the House of Representatives, any one member of the Republican caucus can challenge the job of the Speaker of the House at any given time.
It also means if a bunch of headline-grabbing people in the Republican caucus are more interested in being on television than in actually governing, maintaining a majority, or growing that majority to get big things done, that can hold up the works.
All this is coming to a head because House Speaker Mike Johnson has now put forward a series of bills related to foreign aid. 
Foreign aid is not the United States being wildly charitable. It is not the United States randomly deciding to drop goody bags in poor parts of the world. It does not involve simply sending food to Somalia or something of that nature. When it comes to foreign aid, there are always strings attached.
That&#8217;s what makes it in America&#8217;s interest. It’s the same way as attempting to sponsor a friend in order to accomplish a particular goal; you might lend or give that friend money to get back on their feet in order to make sure that person remains a friend or that an ally is able to be strong.
That is what American foreign aid does, and this has historically been the role of American foreign aid. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States effectively single-handedly rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1950-will-america-s-cowardly-streak-continue-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
A lot of people on the Republican side of the aisle have said that all foreign aid is somehow bad, terrible, useless, or, worse than useless, that it’s counterproductive because we&#8217;re not spending it at home; thus, we shouldn&#8217;t be spending it at all.
Such an argument is insanely shortsighted because there are two ways we spend our defense money. One: actual defense, meaning, for example, creating F-35s, F-22s, aircraft carriers, and submarines. Two: providing for our national defense by strengthening our allies.
When our allies are not strong, we have to step in and take the lead. It turns out that stepping in is a lot more expensive. Allies who are unable to defend themselves lead to enemies who are able to take advantage of that, thus threatening American interests and forcing American involvement. This has happened over and over in American history. When our allies are not strong enough, the United States ends up taking a lead role in areas we have no interest in being.
Foreign aid represents well under 1% of the federal budget of the United States nearly every year. Yet I have been noticing a lot of people screaming to the heavens about the cost of foreign aid: “Oh, I can&#8217;t believe how much this is costing.”
There are some people who are consistent libertarians. There are some people who say the government shouldn&#8217;t be spending on Social Security, disability, welfare, and foreign aid. That is, at least, a consistent position. I think it&#8217;s wrongheaded because America&#8217;s foreign policy interests require that we have strong allies who eventually will be able to take care of themselves.
But there is also a group of people in the Republican Party who are taking the view that foreign aid is a uniquely bad spend, that we&#8217;re wasting taxpayer dollars.
I don&#8217;t believe this is about fiscal responsibility, as they proclaim. When you continue to vote in favor of $5, $6, $7 trillion budgets every single year, but foreign aid is where you begin pinching pennies, I start to get a little suspicious.
We currently spend about 22% of our federal budget every year on Social Security, which is a giant Ponzi scheme because it is a defined benefits plan, not a defined contribution plan. What you pay in is not, in fact, what you get out. For most people, you get out way more from Social Security than you ever paid in. Health care, which is Medicare/Medicaid, represents about 26% of the federal budget. National defense only represents 13% of the federal budget.
So when you tell me that you are deeply worried about the less-than-one percent spent on foreign aid to allies in war time, I think that perhaps you have a different set of priorities.
That suggests to me that there may be a set of ulterior motives I don&#8217;t fully understand. I don&#8217;t really understand what the motivation is for those who seem to suggest that Russia taking Ukraine is of zero interest to the United States. Russia taking Ukraine would be of major interest to the United States, not only because Ukraine is the third largest producer of wheat on planet Earth, but also because Ukraine is strategically placed directly on the border between Russia and Europe, which is presumably the reason why Vladimir Putin wants it. It would be a danger to Eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic states, if Russia were to take Ukraine. 
Ukraine’s border being far from the borders of Lithuania and Latvia creates a massive problem for the Russian military. They would have to worry about NATO&#8217;s forces being deployed against Russia via Ukraine. It would free up American forces, NATO&#8217;s forces, and allied forces to fight an invasion of NATO&#8217;s allies like Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Right now, Ukraine is fighting NATO&#8217;s war. That is a reality. Ukraine is weakening the Russian military and providing a bulwark against NATO&#8217;s states being invaded.
The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/mike-johnsons-ukraine-israel-aid-plan-implodes-as-republicans-rebel-c5da23af" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> on this, saying:
<blockquote>House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday he would plunge ahead with a high-stakes vote to move long-stalled funding for Ukraine, Israel and other overseas allies, elbowing aside criticism from his conservative flank. The move sets up an unpredictable weekend showdown that could determine both the fate of the foreign-aid package—and Johnson’s political career.</blockquote>
Democrats will line up behind the aid effort. Johnson&#8217;s plan is to bring the subjects of Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the TikTok ban, and package all of them together. The reality is that all of them are going to pass with a majority of both parties voting in favor.
Yes, Johnson will require Democratic support in order to pass that bill. A majority of Republicans in the House will vote for that bill. Also, there is a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president, which means that if it is any priority for Ukraine not to simply fall by running out of ammo to the Russians, then you’ve got to make the deal that you can make.
In an interview <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/17/politics/mike-johnson-foreign-aid-analysis/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">with CNN</a>, Johnson stated: 
<blockquote>Since World War II, really, the responsibility for the free world has been shifted onto our shoulders. And we accept that role. We&#8217;re an exceptional nation. We&#8217;re the greatest nation on the planet, and we have to act like it. And we have to project to Putin and Xi and Iran and North Korea and anybody else that we will defend freedom. It doesn&#8217;t mean boots on the ground. We&#8217;re not the world&#8217;s policeman, but we&#8217;re going to do the right thing. And I think the Congress is going to take an important stand here.</blockquote>
This is basic Reagan Republicanism. I know “Reagan” has become a dirty word for some reason, despite the fact Reagan won the Cold War and led to the greatest peacetime economic expansion in American history. Somehow, we&#8217;re supposed to believe a bunch of clowns riding the back seats of the House of Representatives, who have not actually accomplished anything in their entire political career, and have some really mean words about Ronald Reagan&#8217;s foreign policy.
Now, is this going to be a perfect bill? No. There&#8217;s going to be a bunch of crap in the bill you don&#8217;t like. There&#8217;s going to be a bunch of crap in the bill I don&#8217;t like. Is this bill perfect? No. Does it have a lot of problems? Yes. Is this bill necessary in order to preserve the strength of America&#8217;s allies? Yes.
That is why Johnson is right to move the bill forward. There’s also a politically important reason to do so: If you want Republicans to win a broader majority and actually make the serious kinds of cuts to government that are necessary, you need to win Congress by more than three votes. In order for that to happen, you have to win purple districts.
And the bill is relatively popular in purple districts, by every available polling metric.

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-JOHNSON

Why Mike Johnson Is Correct

Ben Shapiro

Federal Government

Israel

Mike Johnson

Opinion

Readers Pass

Republicans

Social Security

Speaker of the House

Spending Bill

On Tuesday, I apparently blew up the Internet because I touched the political third rail. I talked about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/social-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Security</a>.
Now I know what you&#8217;re thinking: What&#8217;s so spicy about Social Security? And I will admit I was thinking the same thing.
Well, I said two things.
First, I said that Social Security needs to change. We must raise the retirement age.
Second, I said that as a general rule, it is not a good personal decision for people to retire early, unless we are talking about people who suffer a physical or mental malady as a result of continued work. Retirement, particularly in the post-familial, post-church age, harms mental health and robs people of purpose. That doesn’t mean you can’t retire if you want to — it’s a free country — or that you should be forced not to retire if you can afford to retire. It means that we should seriously consider what “retirement” itself means before we jump to the universal belief that retirement is always good.
Let’s start with the first argument.
There are a few simple facts of the matter with regard to Social Security. One, we don&#8217;t have the money for it: it&#8217;s a Ponzi scheme. We don’t have enough young people to pay for it, and life expectancy has increased. This means that by 2033, we will in fact be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes. There is no third option.
This means that the government should not be paying people to phase into retirement at 62. And make no mistake, that’s what’s happening: Other taxpayers are paying for your Social Security. The money you paid in was stolen long ago. Which means that fewer and fewer workers — people generally poorer than those of retirement age — are paying for more and more retirees.
What’s more, the average person who lives to 60 will live at least another couple of decades. If you wish to bankrupt the American economy, the continuation of Social Security as-is is guaranteed to do so. Every single politician knows this. And they all lie for political gain.
Second, with regard to the personal decision to retire, very often when people retire, they&#8217;re making a bad decision.
Not always, of course: There are people who are suffering from health problems who don’t want to continue working. That’s understandable. And if you want to retire on your own dime, because you’ve earned enough to retire, and you can find other forms of fulfillment aside from work, that’s certainly your prerogative.
The point I was making is that many people who see retirement as a cure-all will be disappointed. Statistically, according to one study from the Institute of Economic Affairs, “while retirement may initially benefit health &#8211; by reducing stress and creating time for other activities, adverse effects increase the longer retirement goes on. It found retirement increases the chances of suffering from clinical depression by around 40%, and of having at least one diagnosed physical illness by 60%.” According to a meta-analysis of retirees, continuing to work prolonged life for those who worked beyond 65: “Healthy workers that continued to work until they were 66 had an 11% reduced mortality risk. Even retirees with health conditions that worked until they were 66 still had a 9% reduced mortality risk.” Yet another study from Social Science and Medicine finds that “those who had retired were 40 percent more likely to have had a heart attack or stroke than those who were still working.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a>
My point about retiring is simple: Work provides purpose and fulfillment for a huge number of people throughout their lives. That purpose and fulfillment does not automatically disappear at age 65. If we really believe that work is inherently degrading and joyless, what does an ideal retirement age look like? In that world, we should be looking to institute a universal basic income and get rid of work entirely. Which would, of course, be a truly awful idea.
The vision of retirement we are constantly sold — sitting on a beach in a lounge chair — may not actually be real for many people. And what’s more, all people need a sense of purpose — from family, from community, from church. Our society has steadily removed all of those social institutions from daily life. The elderly no longer live in intergenerational homes, helping out kids and grandkids; they’re too often shuttled into old age homes, dependent on programs like Social Security. Which means a lot of people find that purpose in work. Retirement from work without getting involved in another job, or another community purpose, or in church is a recipe for personal malaise.
Now, again, you can choose to retire. Nobody should force you to work; nobody is suggesting anything like that. But when it comes to government subsidization of retirement, we can’t afford it, and there’s little evidence that it’s good public policy.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The solution, of course, is for you to keep your own money. We ought to phase out the Social Security system — if you’re close to 65, you can’t be left without a safety net, of course. But we need to move toward a system where you get to keep your own money, save and invest for the future.
Politicians will continue to lie about this. But we should all understand that they are, in fact, lying.

Elderly Couple

Why Politicians Lie About Social Security

General

Politics

Washington D.C.

Daily Wire Editor Emeritus <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/ben-shapiro" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ben Shapiro</a> contended that the recent <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/debt-ceiling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debt ceiling</a> agreement between President <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> and House Speaker <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/kevin-mccarthy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kevin McCarthy</a> (R-CA) occurs in the context of both Democrats and Republicans spending far beyond the nation’s means.
The debt ceiling, a statute established by <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/congress" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Congress</a> that prevents the government from spending beyond a predetermined <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/national-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national debt</a> limit of $31.4 trillion, exceeded the threshold earlier this year, provoking concerns that the nation will default on loans within the next week at the earliest. McCarthy and Biden reached a <a href="https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20230529/BILLS-118hrPIH-fiscalresponsibility.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deal</a> which, among other measures, suspends the debt limit until 2025, caps spending growth for the next two years in areas except for defense and veterans, and expands food stamp work requirements for those between 49 and 54 years old.
Republican members of the House from both the more moderate and conservative factions, including Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nancy-mace-is-a-no-on-debt-ceiling-deal-outsmarted-by-a-president-who-cant-find-his-pants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">expressed</a> severe reservations about the agreement, contending that the deal will normalize higher spending established through pandemic relief measures. Republican leaders, on the other hand, <a href="https://www.speaker.gov/house-gop-leadership-statement-on-the-fiscal-responsibility-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">celebrated</a> the deal and said the agreement marks a landmark victory for the conference.
Shapiro <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1663538515005566976" target="_blank" rel="noopener">commented</a> on social media that any spending reform which does not significantly amend the welfare system is ultimately inconsequential. “I agree with every single critique of the shortcomings of the debt limit deal,” he remarked. “In a rational world, we wouldn&#8217;t just be fighting over discretionary spending, we&#8217;d be restructuring entitlements.”
The bestselling author and podcast host added that the agreement is a failure “compared to the ideal,” characterizing the compromise between Biden and McCarthy as “a giant bag of failure mixed with a heaping helping of bankruptcy.” He said that in comparison to the proposed debt ceiling increase with no spending reforms, however, the deal could be considered a “success.”
Shapiro also noted that many conservatives are “more agitated over McCarthy&#8217;s deal than they were with the fact that with Trump as president and full control of Congress, Republicans increased spending.” He <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1663563348649168896" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contended</a> that “every fiscal debate is basically about where to place the deck chairs on the Titanic” unless entitlement spending is addressed.
“Politicians all know this. But they&#8217;re incentivized to play kabuki theater over all the rest of the spending so as to avoid the third rail of American politics,” he said. “They kick the can down the road. The iceberg is right there, but they&#8217;re screaming about where the chairs should go.”
Social Security, Medicare, and other health initiatives constituted 46% of the federal budget during the last fiscal year, according to <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Treasury Department. In order to balance the budget while exempting defense, veteran benefits, Social Security, and Medicare from cuts, all other federal spending would have to be reduced by 85%, according to an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-spending-must-be-cut-26-to-balance-budget-even-more-to-keep-core-social-defense-programs-intact-analysis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-96097">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Biden and McCarthy each <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sparing-the-sacred-cow-republicans-and-democrats-refuse-to-touch-social-security-as-debt-crisis-looms" target="_blank" rel="noopener">started</a> the debt limit negotiations with a commitment to refrain from considering reforms to entitlements. Social Security, as Shapiro observed, has long been considered the third rail of American politics: the vast majority of survey respondents have historically said they want benefits from the program retained, even as nearly half are concerned about continued funding for the program, according to an <a href="https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/258335/social-security-american-public-opinion.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from Gallup.

Ben Shapiro Reacts To Debt Limit Deal, Hits Both Democrats And Republicans Over Spending Habits

Ben Shapiro Reacts To Debt Limit Deal, Hits Certain Republicans Over Spending Habits

Congress

Debt Ceiling

House Republicans

National Debt

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said Sunday that former President Donald Trump&#8217;s attacks on Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis are making it harder to have a debate about <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/social-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Security</a>.
Appearing on NBC&#8217;s &#8220;<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-cassidy-concerns-over-texas-ruling-upending-fda-s-authority-are-alarmist-170432069771" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Meet the Press,</a>&#8221; Cassidy blamed both Trump and President Joe Biden for &#8220;demagoguing&#8221; the issue, which has made it difficult for Republicans to talk about reforming the entitlement.
&#8220;Joe Biden and former President Trump have the same plan, which is to do nothing on Social Security, and to allow a 24% cut to benefits when the fund goes insolvent in about eight or nine years,&#8221; said Cassidy. &#8220;It does make it harder. When your leading presidential candidates have made the decision to deceive the American people and to say there isn&#8217;t a problem, when every actuary who looks at this says that there is a problem &#8230; it makes it very hard when they are so irresponsible. It is true for President Biden. It is true for former President Trump.&#8221;
Cassidy touted his proposal to establish a mutual fund apart from Social Security that would help it maintain sustainability. He then blasted political leaders on both sides of the aisle again.
&#8220;If one side proposes something, the other side will demagogue it,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We see Trump and we see Biden demagoguing it now. We need honesty with the American people. But we have a big idea that&#8217;ll solve 75% of the problem, and that&#8217;s a pretty good idea.&#8221;
A <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-super-pac-makes-3-million-ad-buy-attacking-ron-desantis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">super PAC</a> backing Trump has spent millions of dollars on ads attacking DeSantis, according to FEC records. A filing on Friday revealed that Make America Great Again spent $1.5 million for “placed media: TV” opposing DeSantis. The PAC has also released two ads slamming DeSantis for votes to cut Social Security and Medicare while he was in Congress. It cites votes for non-binding resolutions in 2013, 2014, and 2015 while serving in the House that recommended raising the retirement age to 70 and reducing benefits for some.
&#8220;The more you learn about DeSantis, the more you see he just doesn’t share our values,” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV3tgOiInMY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one ad</a> says.
&#8220;DeSantis has his dirty fingers all over senior entitlements, like cutting Medicare, slashing Social Security, even raising our retirement age,&#8221; says <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqO3-erBEG4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">another</a>.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-28878">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The ads will run on CNN and Fox News.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/republicans-arent-really-trying-to-kill-social-security-and-medicare-and-biden-knows-it" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Biden</a> has spent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/desperate-biden-falsely-claims-republicans-will-kill-medicare-social-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">months</a> claiming that Congressional Republicans would kill Social Security, attacking Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) in particular over a proposal to sunset all legislation after five years.

Bill Cassidy

GOP Senator: Trump’s Social Security Attacks On DeSantis Making It Hard To Talk Reform

Bill Cassidy: Trump's Social Security Attacks On DeSantis Making It Hard To Talk Reform 

Donald Trump

Joe Biden

Meet the Press

Ron DeSantis

A union representing employees of the Social Security Administration has demanded that the Biden administration kill a new &#8220;pronoun policy&#8221; geared toward transgender workers, saying it forces political views on members.
American Federation of Government Employees Local 2505 filed a Union-Management Grievance Friday over a policy announced internally on Wednesday called the &#8220;Policy on Prohibiting Discrimination, Including Harassment, Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression,&#8221; which the agency calls the Pronoun Policy for short. The union, which represents 600 low-level employees in Oklahoma and Arkansas, said the policy changed restroom access, the dress code, and &#8220;created a new form with the employee&#8217;s name, gender identity, pronouns.&#8221;
&#8220;All of the changes are violations of Article 1, Section 2 as they changed existing terms and conditions of employment,&#8221; the grievance said. &#8220;Having made these changes without advanced notice and the opportunity to bargain, in addition to SSA violating 5 USC 71, SSA also violated Article 1, Section 2.&#8221;
The grievance went on to say the policy violates employees’ freedom of religion and free speech rights by forcing workers to address people by their preferred pronouns and creates a hostile work environment for employees who do not agree for political or religious reasons.
&#8220;This new policy will create a chilling effect on them and is essentially forcing them to agree with this political view in spite of their own personal political or religious beliefs,” it added.
On March 1, SSA Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi announced the policy to employees with the subject &#8220;Building an Equitable and Inclusive Culture: Gender Identity.&#8221;
&#8220;Soon, you will receive notice of a mandatory training to help you prepare for full implementation of the policy, which will happen on March 31, 2023. Available starting March 2, this training will increase your knowledge of using pronouns and gender-neutral language and supporting employees and colleagues in the workplace,&#8221; the email said.
The 27-page policy, obtained by The Daily Wire, defines the terms agender, bigender, cisgender, gender diverse, genderfluid, genderqueer, and gender nonconforming, nonbinary, and two-spirit, and lays out numerous ways in which the agency will support employees who wish to transition to one of those categories.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-508733" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ss.png" alt="" width="836" height="322" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss.png 836w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss-300x116.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss-768x296.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 836px) 100vw, 836px" /></div>
&#8220;The agency makes note that every transition is different, and some employees may want none of these changes, all of these changes, some of these changes, or additional changes not listed in these procedures,&#8221; it said.
It provides a 19-part form to be filled out to manage an employee&#8217;s gender transition, and an email template for managers to announce an employee&#8217;s new gender that says &#8220;The agency supports [PROPER NAME] in their transition/affirmation&#8230; If you are interested in learning more about how SSA supports gender transition/affirmation, I invite you to refer to [insert link to policy/COSS statement of choice].&#8221;
It says transgender employees may use the bathroom of their choice, and that &#8220;continued intentional misuse of an employee’s name or pronoun could&#8230; lead to disciplinary action.”
“At meetings, employees, managers, and supervisors can introduce themselves with the pronouns they use, which may prompt others at the meeting to share the pronouns they use, e.g., &#8216;Hello, my name is Michael. My pronouns are he/him.&#8217; Additionally, employees, managers, and supervisors should consider including their proper names, pronunciations of their names, and pronouns in their email signatures, e.g., Brianne (Bree-anne) Doe (they/theirs),” it adds.
Ralph Dejuliis, the union local president, said two employees have already asked for a religious exemption. He told The Daily Wire that under Kijakazi, social justice initiatives were distracting the agency from basic issues that were preventing it from serving needy Americans efficiently.
“SSA has already put out a video for all the employees to watch on gender transition. How many people have been working on this… when it takes six months to get an initial disability decision?” he said.
Dejuliis said his personal politics are liberal and progressive, but he finds it inappropriate to force any brand of politics on people through a government job.
“It’s forcing everyone to have a liberal socially work position,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I represent people in Oklahoma and Arkansas. Half the people I represent have concealed carry permits. They are not woke.&#8221;
The policy has “a name for people who don’t like gays and transgender: transphobic. You make up a special name to demonize people? Why don’t you call me sinner because I don’t go to your church?” he said.
A spokesman for the Social Security Administration dismissed the local chapter&#8217;s complaint.
&#8220;The allegations in this locally filed grievance are inaccurate,&#8221; Mark Hinkle told The Daily Wire. &#8220;We have resolved the bargaining obligations associated with the referenced policy with all of the unions representing Social Security employees, at the national level.&#8221;
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-508734" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ss2.png" alt="" width="805" height="371" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss2.png 805w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss2-300x138.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss2-768x354.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 805px) 100vw, 805px" /></div>
In Kijakazi’s email to staff, she said “I want to thank everyone including the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) workgroup, our union partners, and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer + (LGBTQ+) Advisory Council for your collaboration.”
But Dejuliis said he was blindsided by the policy.
“The union’s role is to enforce its contract,” he said. “When they’re telling our members we will discipline you for not following this new policy, that’s a violation of this contract and protections of constitutional rights. You can’t order me to say certain things that are not related to my job.”
Kijakazi’s email added that, &#8220;In my Pride Month video message last June, I discussed the agency’s work to increase equity and equality for gender-diverse and transgender customers. In October, the agency began offering people the choice to self-select their sex in their SSN record, without needing to provide medical or legal documentation of their sex identity… Our new internal Pronoun Policy marks the latest milestone in our work to support President Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combatting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.&#8221;
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-508735" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ss3.png" alt="" width="856" height="867" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss3.png 856w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss3-296x300.png 296w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss3-569x576.png 569w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/03/ss3-768x778.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 856px) 100vw, 856px" /></div>

US President Joe Biden

Union Says Biden Administration Violated Labor Rules With New Transgender Policy

Labor Unions

Unions

President Joe Biden started off his State of the Union address with a wonderful call for unity.
&#8220;You know, we’re often told that Democrats and Republicans can’t work together. But over the past two years, we proved the cynics and naysayers wrong,&#8221; Biden said. &#8220;To my Republican friends, if we could work together in the last Congress, there’s no reason we can’t work together and find consensus on important things in this Congress as well.&#8221;
But then he got nasty.
&#8220;So my — many of — some of my Republican friends want to take the economy hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home should know what those plans are. Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans — some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m not saying it’s a majority &#8211;&#8221;
<blockquote>AUDIENCE: Booo —
THE PRESIDENT: Let me give you —
AUDIENCE: No!
THE PRESIDENT: Anybody who doubts it, contact my office. I’ll give you a copy. I’ll give you a copy of the proposal.</blockquote>
But that hasn&#8217;t happened. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) has offered an 11-point plan that includes a proposal for every piece of federal legislation to sunset after five years. If the legislation works, Congress could simply renew it.
Yet Democrats love their &#8220;Mediscare.&#8221; They love telling the American people that the GOP is going to attack the most vulnerable in our nation &#8212; knowing full well that it&#8217;s not true.
For his part, Scott <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3849304-scott-doubles-down-on-sunsetting-all-federal-programs-after-bidens-jab/">dismissed</a> Biden’s accusations as a “dishonest move” by a “very confused president.” “I will not be intimidated by Joe Biden twisting my words,” he added.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, too, has pondered reformations to Social Security.
“There are modest reforms in entitlements that can be done without disadvantaging anybody at the point of the need,” Pence <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3843718-pence-weve-got-to-have-a-conversation-about-reforming-social-security/">said</a> last week. That isn&#8217;t exactly doing away with the entitlement programs.
Pence has also suggested the U.S. government let younger Americans put part of their Social Security withholdings into a private savings account, but that idea went nowhere when George W. Bush proposed it back in the aughts.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has gone further, saying in 2010, it &#8220;will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up by the roots and get rid of it.&#8221;
After backlash, he walked that back, eventually <a href="https://www.heraldextra.com/news/2022/oct/29/in-his-own-words-a-convesation-with-sen-mike-lee/">proposing</a> a privatization plan similar to Pence&#8217;s.
Other Republicans have suggested moving the threshold age for Medicare to 67 and for Social Security to 70 in an attempt to reduce costs. But Republicans joined Democrats this year in boosting Social Security by 14% in the 2023 budget, and Medicare is set for a $32 billion increase, taking its gross spending on benefits above $1 trillion.
So Republicans don&#8217;t really want to do away with either program. But Biden got himself worked up into a tizzy, foaming at the mouth as he said, &#8220;Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned it. And if anyone tries to cut Social Security &#8230; if anyone tries to cut Medicare, I’ll stop them. I’ll veto it.&#8221;
&#8220;And, look, I’m not going to allow them to take away — be taken away. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.&#8221;
Well, no one&#8217;s trying to do that, Mr. President. And you know that.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

President Biden Delivers State Of The Union Address

Republicans Aren’t Really Trying To Kill Social Security And Medicare, And Biden Knows It

Republicans Aren't Really Trying To Kill Social Security And Medicare, And President Joe Biden Knows It

Executive

Medicare

Mike Lee

Mike Pence

Rick Scott

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/republican-party" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Republican</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/democratic-party" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Democratic</a> officials preparing to negotiate spending reductions have expressed an unmitigated refusal to involve <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/social-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Security</a> in the conversation.
President <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/joe-biden" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> and House Speaker <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/kevin-mccarthy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kevin McCarthy</a> (R-CA) are slated to meet on Wednesday after the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/debt-ceiling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debt ceiling</a>, an arbitrary cap on the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/national-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national debt</a> established by Congress, exceeded the statutory limit of nearly $31.4 trillion. The White House has asserted that lawmakers on the other side of the aisle are attempting to reduce benefits from Social Security, the retirement, disability, and survivor benefit program established during the Great Depression, as well as Medicare, which provides health insurance to older Americans.
“You paid for your Social Security. Every single paycheck from the time you started working,” Biden <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1619495290284740609" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> on social media. “If Republicans try to cut it, I will veto it.”
McCarthy has meanwhile balked at the suggestion and affirmed that Republicans have no desire to discuss the programs in the forthcoming negotiations. “Let’s take those off the table,” he said in a recent <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/reforming-social-security-and-medicare-off-the-table-in-debt-negotiations-mccarthy-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a>. “If you read our Commitment to America, all we talk about is strengthening Medicare and Social Security.”
Social Security, Medicare, and other health initiatives constituted 46% of the federal budget during the last fiscal year, according to <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Treasury Department. In order to balance the budget while exempting defense, veteran benefits, Social Security, and Medicare from cuts, all other federal spending would have to be reduced 85%, according to an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-spending-must-be-cut-26-to-balance-budget-even-more-to-keep-core-social-defense-programs-intact-analysis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Tax Foundation Senior Economist Erica York confirmed to The Daily Wire that leaving the two programs untouched would not be possible if officials are serious about restoring fiscal sanity. “If reforms to Social Security and Medicare and raising new revenues are all completely off the table,” she commented, “balancing the budget within the next ten years is an unrealistic goal because it could only be achieved by making infeasibly large cuts to other spending programs.”
Social Security has long been considered the third rail of American politics: the vast majority of survey respondents have historically indicated that they want benefits from the program retained with no reductions, even as nearly half are concerned about continued funding for the program, according to an <a href="https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/258335/social-security-american-public-opinion.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from Gallup.
Both trust funds managed by Social Security are nevertheless slated to be insolvent by 2035, according to a <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33514" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the Congressional Research Service. The agency recommended increasing payroll taxes or reducing payouts to avoid a benefit reduction; though the two major parties have floated both courses of action in recent decades, the remarks from Biden and McCarthy indicate that a compromise on Social Security reforms will not even be considered.
“Typically, we’ve seen Democratic proposals focus on increasing the payroll tax for solvency,” York continued, “and Republican proposals focus on the spending side for solvency, such as increasing the retirement age or curbing benefits for high-income earners.”
Republican and Democratic administrations have maintained unsustainable budget deficits and inflated the national debt to more than $31.5 trillion. President Barack Obama, President Donald Trump, and President Joe Biden have each witnessed deficits nearing or surpassing $1 trillion, according to <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Office of Management and Budget, even during fiscal years that were not affected by stimulus measures intended to address the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 lockdown-induced recession.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Republican Conference Press Conference

Sparing The Sacred Cow: Republicans And Democrats Refuse To Touch Social Security As Debt Crisis Looms

Republicans And Democrats Refuse To Touch Social Security As Debt Crisis Looms

Democratic Party

Kevin McCarthy

Republican Party

House Speaker <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/kevin-mccarthy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kevin McCarthy</a> (R-CA) said that spending cuts to <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/social-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Social Security</a> and <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/medicare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Medicare</a> are “off the table” as lawmakers seek to fund the government while reducing deficits.
McCarthy plans to meet with President <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/biden-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Joe Biden</a> on Wednesday to discuss possible budget cuts after the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/debt-ceiling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debt ceiling</a>, an arbitrary cap on the <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/national-debt" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national debt</a> established by Congress, exceeded the statutory limit of nearly $31.4 trillion. The lawmaker said multiple times during an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8FaXFR0jRg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with CBS senior foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Brennan on Sunday that Republicans would not offer to reduce allocations for Social Security and Medicare.
“Let’s take those off the table,” McCarthy said when asked about the programs. “If you read our Commitment to America, all we talk about is strengthening Medicare and Social Security.”
Social Security, Medicare, and other health initiatives constituted 46% of the federal budget during the last fiscal year, according to <a href="https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Treasury Department. In order to balance the budget while exempting defense, veteran benefits, Social Security, and Medicare from cuts, all other federal spending would have to be reduced 85%, according to an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-spending-must-be-cut-26-to-balance-budget-even-more-to-keep-core-social-defense-programs-intact-analysis" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
McCarthy, who presides over a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, expressed a willingness to examine defense programs for unnecessary waste. “I want to make sure we’re protected in our defense spending, but I want to make sure it’s effective and efficient. I want to look at every single dollar we’re spending, no matter where it’s being spent. I want to eliminate waste wherever it is,” he continued. “Like every single household, like every single state, we shouldn’t just print more money. We should balance our budget.”
Keeping veteran and defense spending intact would require 33% spending reductions for all other federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The average annual benefit for a new retiree would thus decrease by $13,000, while as many as 25 million recipients of Medicare would lose eligibility.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/very-irresponsible-yellen-blasts-house-republicans-for-wanting-spending-cuts-amid-debt-showdown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> lawmakers that the “extraordinary measures” adopted by her agency to keep the government solvent will last only until June. Brennan pressed McCarthy on whether he would commit to avoiding a default on obligations at all costs.
“We have hundreds of billions of dollars. This won’t come to fruition until some time this June. So the responsible thing to do is sit down like two adults and start having that discussion. Unfortunately the White House was saying before that they wouldn’t even talk. I’m thankful that we’re meeting on Wednesday, but that’s exactly what we should be doing,” McCarthy responded. “What has happened with the debt limit is we’ve reached our credit card limit. Should we just continue to raise the limit, or should we look at what we’re spending?”
Republican lawmakers <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/here-are-the-concessions-house-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-gave-to-republican-holdouts-to-win-their-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struck a deal</a> with McCarthy under which the party’s new majority will introduce a budget that refrains from increasing the debt ceiling. The national debt exceeded $31.5 trillion even as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interest-payments-on-the-national-debt-on-pace-to-surpass-military-spending" target="_blank" rel="noopener">maintenance costs</a> soar due to a higher interest rate environment. An <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/government-must-raise-taxes-40-or-cut-spending-30-to-achieve-fiscal-balance-study" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from economists at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School recently found that a 30% decrease in spending or a 40% increase in taxation would be necessary to handle current spending and future obligations.

Reforming Social Security And Medicare ‘Off The Table’ In Debt Negotiations, McCarthy Says

Social Security And Medicare Cuts 'Off The Table' In Debt Negotiations

Biden Administration

U.S.

Severe reductions to federal expenditures would be required in order to attain a balanced <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/budget" target="_blank" rel="noopener">budget</a> while keeping intact critical programs such as Social Security, according to a new analysis.
Policymakers must enact 26% across-the-board spending cuts in order to balance the budget within the next decade, according to an <a href="https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-it-take-balance-budget" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. In order to balance the budget but also exempt programs such as defense, veteran benefits, Social Security, and Medicare from cuts, all other federal spending would have to be reduced 85%.
“Due to continued borrowing over the past several years, the desirable fiscal goal of budgetary balance has become much more difficult to reach, and it is highly unlikely it could be achieved in a decade or less, particularly if revenue, defense, and other parts of the budget are excluded from the solution,” the analysis said. “We recommend Congress adopt an aggressive but achievable fiscal goal in its budgets and any fiscal deals.”
Keeping veteran and defense spending intact would require 33% spending reductions for all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare. The average annual benefit for a new retiree would decrease by as much as $13,000, while as many as 25 million recipients of Medicare would lose eligibility. Between 1.1 million and 1.4 million federal employees would be dismissed.
Another alternative is keeping defense, veterans, and Social Security expenditures intact while enacting cuts to Medicare and all other federal programs. Such a course would require 51% spending reductions for affected agencies.
“Wanting to balance the budget is an admirable and desirable goal. However, the path to get to balance within ten years is likely infeasible, and it is virtually impossible if major parts of the budget and tax code are exempt from change,” the analysis remarked. “Policymakers should set aggressive but realistic fiscal goals, should keep all areas of the budget on the table, and should put forward policies to begin reducing deficits. The first step, of course, is to avoid actions that would worsen our already unsustainable fiscal situation. Policymakers should agree not to pass legislation that calls for any new borrowing. We commend the adoption of a specific and realistic fiscal target.”
The analysis from the conservative think tank comes after Republican lawmakers <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/here-are-the-concessions-house-speaker-kevin-mccarthy-gave-to-republican-holdouts-to-win-their-support" target="_blank" rel="noopener">struck a deal</a> with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) under which the party’s new majority will introduce a budget that refrains from increasing the debt ceiling, an artificial limit on federal obligations imposed by Congress. Several Republican lawmakers initially hesitant to hand the gavel to the leader of their caucus had expressed concern about excessive federal spending.
The national debt is currently nearing $31.5 trillion even as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/interest-payments-on-the-national-debt-on-pace-to-surpass-military-spending" target="_blank" rel="noopener">maintenance costs</a> soar due to a higher interest rate environment. An <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/government-must-raise-taxes-40-or-cut-spending-30-to-achieve-fiscal-balance-study" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from economists at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School recently found that a 30% decrease in spending or a 40% increase in taxation would be necessary to handle current spending and future obligations.
“Just like all individuals and businesses, the federal government is subject to a budget constraint: it must fund all expenditures, current and future, from its tax and non-tax receipts over time,” the economists said. “By construction, the fiscal imbalance must be zero for a fiscal policy to be sustainable without future changes.”

U.S. Capitol Building

Federal Spending Must Be Cut 26% To Balance Budget, Even More To Keep Core Social, Defense Programs Intact: Analysis

Budget

Department of Defense

Economy

Veterans

A report from The <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/united-nations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United Nations</a> encouraged policymakers around the world to plan for older <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/population" target="_blank" rel="noopener">populations</a> with fewer younger workers.
Developed countries with a greater share of older people and developing countries with more young people will experience the “irreversible global trend” of population aging, according to a <a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2023/01/2023wsr-fullreport.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the organization. The number of people over 65 years old is expected to more than double over the next three decades, from around 760 million to over 1.6 billion, while the number of people over 80 years old is increasing at an even faster rate.
“This pattern began on a global scale around the middle of the twentieth century and is expected to intensify in the decades ahead,” the analysis explained. “Most of the more developed countries have experienced population ageing over several decades and are already in advanced stages of this process. By contrast, many developing countries face rapid transitions towards ageing societies.”
While nations in Europe and North America currently have the highest number of older people, nations in Africa and Western Asia are “expected to experience the fastest growth in the number of older people” over the next three decades. Dependency ratios, which chart the number of older people and children relative to the working-age populations upon which they depend, are projected to increase over the same horizon.
The UN therefore called upon governments to increase retirement ages and expand pension coverage while making investments in healthcare and education that permit older people to be more self-reliant and economically productive.
“Based on current global trends, future cohorts of working-age and older persons are likely to be healthier and better educated, and therefore more productive, compared to earlier cohorts,” the report continued. “Eliminating age-related discrimination and barriers to formal employment are other critical measures for older persons to make continued contributions.”
Several developed nations are facing overburdened pension systems as more individuals enter retirement age. Medicare Hospital Insurance in the United States is projected to be insolvent by 2028, while Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund will deplete reserves by 2034, according to an <a href="https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/social-security-and-medicare-are-approaching-insolvency" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The UN <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/india-will-surpass-japan-and-germany-as-the-worlds-third-largest-economy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">forecasts</a> that the human race will have 8.5 billion people by 2030 and 9.7 billion people by 2050 even as worldwide fertility rates reach their lowest levels since 1950. India will soon surpass China as the world’s most populous nation; the former maintains a fertility rate of 2.2 children per woman, while the latter has a fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman, according to <a href="https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Some commentators have rejected the conventional wisdom that the global population is expanding at an unsustainable rate. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-warns-civilization-will-crumble-without-people-having-more-kids" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called</a> low birth rates “one of the biggest risks to civilization” and encouraged people to build families.
“So many people, including smart people, think that there are too many people in the world and think that the population is growing out of control,” he said. “It’s completely the opposite. Please look at the numbers. If people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble.”

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY UNGA 77 TUESDAY

United Nations Alerts Policymakers To Brace For An Aging Population

Brace For An Aging Population, United Nations Tells World Governments

Population

United Nations

World

The University of Georgia Bulldogs are again college football national champions, having thoroughly decimated the underdog TCU Horned Frogs 65-7. 
Beyond the questions about what this means for Big-12 football or whether the Michigan Wolverines would have given Georgia an actual challenge, another nagging question is making the rounds: The age of Georgia’s quarterback Stetson Bennett.
Longtime radio broadcaster Chris “Mad Dog” Russo made a <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/legendary-broadcaster-mad-dog-russo-rails-against-georgias-stetson-bennett-kid" target="_blank" rel="noopener">compelling point</a> about the quarter centurion still playing in the NCAA. “I have a major problem with Stetson Bennett, 25 years of age, playing college football,” said Russo. “I can see it for one year. Last year he won. Burrow was 23 going on 24 when he won. But 25 years of age, playing quarterback for Georgia, he should’ve left last year … What is the cut-off date? When do we sit here and watch a college athlete and say ‘you know what? This is ridiculous! … When does that get to be a joke? What is the age? Thirty?’ There’s gotta be an age where this is enough already.”
There are, in fact, four NFL quarterbacks who will be leading their teams into the playoffs who are younger than Bennett.
Granted, Bennett’s is a compelling story. At only <a href="https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/33016492/how-georgia-stetson-bennett-went-walk-college-football-playoff-national-championship" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5 feet 11 inches</a> and 185 pounds coming out of high school, the QB’s only FBS scholarship came from Middle Tennessee State University. After being a walk-on at Georgia, he was red-shirted his first year and never took a snap from center. Then he transferred to Jones County Junior College. After one season he returned to Georgia in the backup role until the starting QB’s injury gave him his shot. Bennett won the job as starter and went on to win back-to-back championships.
Get the scriptwriter on the phone!
Still, as cool a story as it is, the fact remains that a 25-year-old played college football in the most important game of the year. Something seems just intuitively wrong about a full-fledged adult playing against 19 and 20-year-old kids. Or at least what used to be considered an adult. 
Perhaps Bennett’s situation is emblematic of a larger social phenomenon that seems to be growing not just in this country but the First World: The advent of the perpetual adolescent. 
In 1940, only 5.5% of U.S. men and 3.8% of women went on after high school to earn a college degree. As Mark Steyn likes to point out, the United States tackled the Great Depression, won the Second World War, and became not just a global superpower but a hyperpower courtesy of a populace with an average eighth grade education. 
Today the percentage of Americans with college degrees is 36.6% men, 39.1% women.
There is meaning in these numbers. Certainly for many, college is a net positive. Especially in the STEM fields where it is an essential for competency in the workplace or as a foundation for graduate schools in professions such as medicine, mathematics, engineering, etc. But for many, college is a waste — as your barista behind the counter who holds a degree in primitive cultures and indentured servitude courtesy of student loans will attest. 
For many, the main function of college now seems to be to defer entering adulthood.   
An even more telling illustration of this trend towards the extended adolescence is the percentage of Americans who hold advanced degrees. That number is now 13.1%, up from just 8.6% in 2000; the number of Americans with a post-collegiate education has more than doubled from 10.5 million in 2000 to 24.1 million in 2021. 4.7 million of them went even further to earn PhDs.
Such trends toward deferring entering the workforce as long as possible can be seen in the data: The median age of the U.S. labor force, which has risen from 39.6 in 2001 to 41.7 in 2021, is projected to hit 42.6 by 2031. 
The phenomenon of the perpetual adolescent will have detrimental impacts down the road, in both social and economic spheres. 
The longer one waits to enter the workforce and get on with their adult lives means the longer one waits to get married, start a family, and buy a home — all cornerstones of a stable society. Starting a family later, if at all, means less of a biological window to have children, reducing the number of offspring. 
It’s no coincidence that as Americans become more ‘educated’ they are also having fewer children. From 1950 to the present, the U.S. birth rate per 1,000 has been cut in half from 24 to 12. 
These numbers are ominous because, while we have opted to have fewer and fewer children, we have also drastically expanded the entitlement and social safety net programs by federal and state governments. 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — and a myriad of literally 100 other programs — run on tax dollars. As they grow, they need more taxpayers entering the workforce earlier, and to stay in it longer, to remain solvent. Yet, the exact opposite is taking place. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, you can have a low birth rate or a welfare state, but you cannot have both. 
Throw into the mix the average American lifespan has lengthened by two decades since the inception of Social Security due to competent medicine and soon the age pyramid will be inverted. More people demanding more subsidies for a longer span of their lives from fewer workers spending less time in the productive, i.e. tax-yielding, workforce is a mathematical Jenga tower. One that is already teetering.
Math has no ideology. Numbers, not political wishful thinking, will have the ultimate say.
According to the BLS there are currently 10.5 million job openings out there. All one needs to do is drive into a commercial district of any town and you will see “Now Hiring” signs on many storefronts. But it’s hard to go to work when you’re too busy earning that advanced degree in underwater basket weaving, despite being well into your twenties. 
So, to compensate, the West looks to the impoverished countries of the world to import the children they are not having to fill the jobs their own entitled Peter Pans won’t take. 
To be sure, there are those in their 20s who still live at home solely for economic reasons. They would love nothing more than to get on with their lives and be on their own. But with the average rent for a one-bedroom in Manhattan, for example, approaching $4,000/mo this is problematic. 
I freely admit, it was easier from a purely financial standpoint to move into adulthood in 1990 than today. But for many, going to college, then grad school, then pursuing a doctorate is a way to put off the inevitable ‘big person living’ for as long as possible. And the delay is funded by the federal government, offering loans that will place them in bondage for decades to come. This is a socially and economically unsustainable dynamic in the fabric of American life. One that sees no abatement in the near future.
So, we see the eternal children in football stands cheering on the Stetson Bennetts of the world who are still playing games in college at an age at which their grandparents were already well into their adult lives, living in their own homes and working full-time jobs while raising a family.
Brad Schaeffer is a commodities trader, musician, and writer whose articles have also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, National Review, The Federalist, Zerohedge, Substack and other news outlets. He is the author of the acclaimed World War II novel <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Another-Time-Place-Brad-Schaeffer/dp/1682616630" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/Another-Time-Place-Brad-Schaeffer/dp/1682616630&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1659708848976000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3j8XHp_hW4Eei6fy_WS4oB">Of Another Time And Place</a>. Brad’s newest best-selling novel, <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Extraordinary/Brad-Schaeffer/9781642939422" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Extraordinary/Brad-Schaeffer/9781642939422&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1659708848976000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3RcUIjvMA9Rf9h4FYUl8Op">The Extraordinary</a>, is about a teen-aged boy on the autism spectrum telling us in his own words how he and his family cope with his war veteran father’s PTSD.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

2023 CFP National Championship – TCU v Georgia

Stetson Bennett And The Advent Of The Perpetual Adolescent

adolescents

College Football

Georgia

NCAA

Social Issues

The Social Security retirement trust fund is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gop-rep-elect-lawler-congress-needs-a-come-to-jesus-moment-on-spending" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rapidly approaching insolvency</a>. Congress needs to act at some point, and Americans need to adjust their plans.
Social Security is one of the financial foundations of retirement for most Americans, and it becomes more important as they age.
The benefits are guaranteed for life, no matter how long the beneficiary lives. They’re also the only inflation-adjusted guaranteed lifetime benefit most U.S. retirees have.
The coming insolvency of Social Security has been well-known for years, and the reasons for it are clear.
The Baby Boomers are in or entering their retirement years. Since 2011, 10,000 Baby Boomers per day have been turning age 65.
Beginning in 2024, when the large middle-section of the Boomer generation begins turning 65, that number jumps to 12,000 per day. There aren’t enough younger workers joining the workforce to replace the Boomers and pay taxes into the program.
Each year, the Board of Trustees of Social Security issues a report on the solvency of the program, estimating results for the next 75 years.
The 2022 report had some good news. The retirement trust fund was projected to last through 2034, one year longer than in the 2021 report.
But the assumptions about inflation and demographics seem optimistic. If that’s the case, the trust fund will run out of money before 2034.
The consequences of the trust fund’s depletion are widely misunderstood. The Social Security retirement program won’t end when the trust fund runs out of money. Payroll taxes and self-employment taxes continue to flow into the program each year.
The trustees estimate the annual tax revenue will be enough to pay 75% to 80% of benefits for at least 75 years. That means the worst-case scenario, if Congress doesn’t act to shore up the program, will be an across-the-board reduction in benefits of 20% to 25%.
Congress is likely to act before that happens. Current and future retirees also need to act. But retirees and pre-retirees need to avoid taking some actions being recommended.
Some people advise that, because of the pending insolvency, the Baby Boomers should claim their retirement benefits as soon as they are eligible to, at age 62, or at least no later than their full retirement age.
The reasoning is that they should grab the promised benefits as soon as possible, before any cuts are made.
But it’s generally better for people to wait as long as they can (but no later than age 70) to claim their benefits. The annual benefit increases by up to 8% for each year claiming is delayed through 70. That’s a guaranteed, tax-free annual increase, a return most people can’t obtain anywhere else.
Plus, each year Social Security benefits are increased by the amount of the latest for inflation rate. Over the years, there’s a significant benefit to having that inflation indexing compounded on a higher beginning benefit.
Also, once Congress finally acts, I expect it will do as it has done in the past. People already receiving Social Security benefits and probably those within five to 10 years of claiming them will be protected. The current promised benefit levels will be grandfathered for them.
Even if Congress doesn’t grandfather this group, I’d rather have a benefit cut imposed on the higher benefit gained from waiting to claim than the lower benefit paid to those who claim early.
Higher income and net worth individuals might not be protected. I suspect they’re likely to be subject to some combination of lower benefits and higher income taxes regardless of age.
The most likely scenario is that younger workers (those ages 50 and under) will bear most of the burdens of higher taxes during their working years and lower benefits after their careers. The longer Congress waits to act, the more severe these changes will be.
There’s another option for Congress. It can declare that any shortfall in Social Security will be covered by a contribution of general funds from the Treasury Department. The Social Security shortfall would add to the annual budget deficit and to the federal debt.
Whatever Congress does or doesn’t do, Social Security’s fiscal difficulties aren’t a good reason to change your Social Security claiming strategy if you’re within 10 years of retirement. Most people should wait to claim their benefits as long as possible in order to maximize lifetime benefits. This advice might change when Congress debates specific proposals. You should also build flexibility in your retirement plan.
Because Congress mismanaged the program and didn’t act quickly enough when the shortfall became apparent, your plan should be able to absorb a reduction of 20% to 25% in Social Security benefits beginning in the early 2030s. I don’t expect that to happen, but the prudent action is to have some flexibility in your spending in case it does.
Bob Carlson is the editor of the monthly newsletter and website <a href="https://www.retirementwatch.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Retirement Watch</a>, which he founded in 1991. He also serves as chairman of the board of trustees of the Fairfax County Employees’ Retirement System and is the author of numerous books, including &#8220;Where&#8217;s My Money?&#8221; and &#8220;The New Rules of Retirement.&#8221; His latest book is &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Retirement-Watch-Essential-Guide-Retiring/dp/1684513332/ref=sr_1_2?crid=256OFCN2VFOBL&amp;keywords=retirement+watch+carlson&amp;qid=1669926284&amp;sprefix=retirement+watch+carlson%2Caps%2C56&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Retirement Watch: The Essential Guide to Retiring in the 2020s,&#8221;</a> (Regnery, January 2023).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Social Security Cards

How Social Security’s Coming Insolvency Should — And Shouldn’t — Change Your Retirement Plan

Funding

Menu