The Current Social Security System

Social Security is a U.S. government program that provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits. Established in 1935, it is funded through payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers. As of 2024, approximately 71.6 million people receive some form of Social Security benefit and the average monthly benefit is $1,788.12. However, access and funding to social security has been previously predicted to decline. The SSA estimates that the program's trust funds will be depleted by 2035, at which point it will only be able to pay about 75% of scheduled benefits. The financing shortfall arises primarily from demographic trends: the population is getting older, and the birth rates are decreasing, thus bringing in fewer workers relative to the number of beneficiaries. With a new act in place, far-reaching changes are likely to be seen.

The Recent Vote on the Social Security Fairness Act

This fall, momentum for the stalled legislation began when House authors used a discharge petition to force a vote by gathering the signatures of a majority of lawmakers. The bill passed the House last month, raising the stakes to finalize it before the year-end deadline. This urgency put pressure on the Senate to act with an impending government shutdown. Luckily, Congress and Joe Biden averted the government shutdown and was able to push for this new act.On December 21, 2024, the U.S. Senate voted 76-20 for the Social Security Fairness Act, an act that was first thought of back in 2003. Before this act, there were two federal policies that prevented nearly 3 million people, including police officers, firefighters, postal workers, teachers, and others with a public pension, from collecting their full Social Security benefits. Fortunately, this legislation, which has been in the making for decades, eliminates these two restrictive policies. This bipartisan bill would also apply to some disability benefits and could add about $200 billion to the federal debt over 10 years. Doing so would speed up the insolvency of social security by  six months, according to federal bookkeepers.

Conclusion

So while the recent approval of the Social Security Fairness Act marks a significant shift in how social security benefits will be calculated and distributed, the long-term fiscal implications of these changes remain controversial among policymakers and economists. As the legislation moves forward, it will be crucial to monitor its effects on both beneficiaries and the broader economy.

Read More:

• Kati Weis, Jui Sarwate, Taylor Johnston, CBS News

• Stephen C. Goss, Social Security Bulletin

• Lisa Hagan, Hartford Courant

• Jiselle Lee, The Washington Post

Donald Trump’s cabinet picks have ignited fiery debates and eyebrow raises alike, but these selections are shaping up to be as unpredictable as the man himself. Here’s an overview of what’s happened up until now and what it means in comparison to our past four years.

Secretary of Defense

Trump has nominated Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and military veteran, to lead the Department of Defense. Hegseth is known for his strong advocacy of increased military spending and a robust national defense posture. Compared to the Biden administration’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who prioritized international alliances and military diversity, Hegseth may shift the focus towards unilateral military strength and traditionalist values.

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, known for his anti-vaccine views, has been nominated for this position. His selection has raised concerns among public health officials and pro-life groups, given his controversial stance on vaccines and abortion. Under the Biden administration, Secretary Xavier Becerra focused on expanding healthcare access and supporting vaccine initiatives. Kennedy’s appointment could signal a rollback of these priorities, emphasizing conservative health policies.

Secretary of the Treasury

Scott Bessent, a hedge fund CEO, has been chosen to oversee the Treasury Department. Bessent's background in finance aligns with Trump's focus on economic growth and deregulation. This contrasts with Janet Yellen’s tenure under Biden, which emphasized economic equity and progressive tax reforms. Bessent’s policies are likely to prioritize financial markets and deregulation, marking a departure from Biden’s more interventionist approach.

Secretary of Homeland Security

Kristi Noem, the current Governor of South Dakota, is set to lead the Department of Homeland Security. Noem's tenure as governor was marked by strict immigration policies and a focus on border security, aligning with Trump’s agenda. This is a stark shift from Biden’s Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who emphasized humane immigration reform and protecting asylum seekers. Noem’s leadership may usher in stricter border enforcement.

Attorney General

Pam Bondi, former Attorney General of Florida, has been nominated for the nation's top legal position. Bondi is a staunch supporter of Trump and has a history of advocating for conservative legal positions, indicating a Justice Department that may prioritize issues such as election integrity and law enforcement support. This represents a departure from Merrick Garland’s tenure under Biden, which focused on civil rights and countering domestic extremism.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator

Lee Zeldin, a former congressman from New York, is Trump's pick to lead the EPA. Zeldin has been a critic of stringent environmental regulations, suggesting a potential rollback of policies aimed at combating climate change in favor of economic growth and energy independence. This contrasts with Biden’s EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who prioritized aggressive climate action and environmental justice.

United Nations Ambassador

Elise Stefanik, a congresswoman from New York, has been nominated as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Stefanik's foreign policy positions have generally aligned with Trump’s "America First" approach, indicating a potential shift in U.S. engagement with international bodies. Compared to Biden’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who emphasized multilateral diplomacy, Stefanik may adopt a more nationalistic stance.

Conclusion

Trump’s cabinet selections reaffirm his focus on "America First" economics, deregulation, and military strength. While they align with his vision of national revitalization, some caution that they risk exacerbating domestic polarization and weakening international alliances. The upcoming confirmation hearings will be critical in determining the direction of his second term. Domestically, these appointments may heighten divisions, while internationally, they could challenge established alliances and agreements. Together, these choices provide a clear glimpse into Trump’s strategic priorities and their potential impact on the nation’s future stability and influence.

Read more here:

• BBC News

• CBS News

• Vanity Fair

• New York Post

• Wall Street Journal

• Capital B News

• Politico

• PBS NewsHour

• Newsweek

On December 21st, 2024, the US government narrowly averted a shutdown after reaching a temporary resolution to its debt problem. For the past 3 decades, the national debt has continued to rise at a concerning rate. Worse yet, since 2013, US debt has even begun to outnumber GDP, a sign that if the federal government doesn’t take action, it may soon reach a point of no return. Now, with the current debt to GDP ratio standing at 129%, it may be mere years until the threshold 200% is reached and levels become too unsustainable to come back from. 

So what was the most recent stand-off about in Congress and does it mean anything in the long-term for paying back the country’s debt? Unfortunately, the answer is likely no. The main issue stems from an archaic debt limit, something which has been around since World War I, and which caps the total debt the US can have at once. However, as debt rates have soared in the past few decades, the law has become increasingly counterproductive and many times over, it’s pushed Congress back to the negotiating table. Essentially, whenever the country is close to passing the debt limit, Congress must convene and either prevent the nation’s bill from overflowing or push the limit even higher. Otherwise, the government would be forced to announce a shutdown. The past few times these crises have occurred, Congress has simply pushed the debt ceiling higher up. But how and if it should continue to do so is what gave rise to the most recent dispute.

During the last showdown, leaders in Congress agreed to suspend the limit until January 1st of 2025. With the date coming soon and the US still no closer to being under last year’s cap, pressure was already coming strong. The tipping point, however, was a recent announcement from president-elect Donald Trump that he intended to suspend the cap for another 2 years despite calls not to do so. Democrat representatives in particular have called out Trump’s proposal and argued that by increasing the debt limit, the US would be encouraging fiscal riskiness and higher spending.

The whole dispute ended with House speaker Mike Johnson approving a crucial stopgap funding bill, clearing the way for the debt limit to be suspended with some additional bonuses. The law will boost disaster aid funds by $100 billion and will also provide $10 billion worth of agricultural aid. President Joe Biden is expected to sign and approve the law in the coming days, as well.

In the short run, this will allow the US government to avert yet another shutdown, but going forward, it likely won’t do the country much good. By ignoring current spending caps, fiscal irresponsibility may be promoted and Congress may avoid taking meaningful action to fixing the debt issue. By throwing the growing amount of national debt under the rug, it does not simply disappear, however. Soon, although not in 2025, the government will be forced to confront it.

Read more here:

• Scott Horsely, NPR

• Katie Edmondson, Andrew Duehren, New York Times

• Lisa Mascaro, Farnoush Amiri, Matt Brown, Associated Press

On December 19, Amazon drivers in eight facilities around the United States went on strike. Organized by the Teamsters labor union, this walkout aims for Amazon to experience shipping delays during the busiest time of the year when shopping is at its highest.

Teamsters gave Amazon until December 15 to start negotiating their contract for better pay and working conditions for workers, and when the company failed to recognize them, the strike began.

The company has had a history of high injury rates in the workplace. A report conducted by the University of Illinois Chicago in January found that 41% percent of workers report injuries when they’re working at an Amazon warehouse. Furthemore, a Senate investigation last week discovered that Amazon manipulated injury data for the past seven years.

Strikes have been exceedingly common in the past few years. A report conducted by the Economic Policy Institute in February found that workers involved in walkouts increased by 280% in 2023. With multiple labor unions in many sectors striking, such as the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike, the 2024 United States port strike, and the ongoing Starbucks strike, the Amazon workers join a rising trend.

Since the strike began, thousands of warehouse and delivery workers have joined the ranks. Amazon has continuously denied the validity of the walkout, assuring consumers that shipping will not be delayed – only a handful of the hundreds of facilities Amazon owns are under strike. 

Interestingly, the strikers are not recognized by Amazon as employees. Teamsters claims to represent workers who work for a third-party contractor under Amazon. They use a rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to maintain that the workers are considered to have joint employers. Additionally, Amazon controls the way the contractor operates, and the contractor exists entirely under the company.

Still, Amazon justifies its unwillingness to negotiate with the workers due to them working under the contractor, calling the strikers “almost entirely outsiders”.

Teamsters has had a long history with Amazon. In April of 2022, Amazon workers at Staten Island voted to be represented by the recently created Amazon Labor Union, in a vote certified by the NLRB. Amazon does not recognize this union and has continuously challenged the vote in court, claiming that the results do not accurately represent the opinions of those at the facility. Earlier this year, the Amazon Labor Union voted to affiliate themselves with the Teamsters Union. 

But there may be another reason the strikes are happening now. Director of Labor and Employment Studies at San Francisco State University, John Logan believes that workers are striking before Donald Trump takes office and appoints a Republican majority to the NLRB, which previously supported unions under the Biden administration.

Tellingly, a poll conducted by Gallup in September found that 62% of Americans believed Democrats would support union members, compared to 27% believing the Republicans would support these unions.

However, Trump’s appointee to lead the Department of Labor, Oregon Rep. Lor Chavez-DeRemer, has had strong support from unions in the past. She’s been one of the only Republicans to co-sponsor the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, which support labor unions.

Even so, if Amazon manages to delay negotiations until Trump appoints pro-business leaders to the NLRB, they can continue overlooking the union and the strike.

Unlike the ongoing Starbucks strike, which is set to end on Christmas Eve, it is unclear when this strike will end. Vinnie Perrone, a Teamsters spokesperson in New York, said that it would continue “as long as it takes”. Unlike Starbucks, Amazon is firmly against negotiations, meaning that if Teamsters aims to make a statement and apply more pressure, the strike may likely continue for a longer duration.

Even though Amazon can continue ignoring the strike, they cannot continue ignoring the root cause of it. If the workers keep being unrecognized, Amazon can expect more to come in the future.

Read More Here:

• Ellen Iones, Vox

• Chris Isidore, CNN

• Haleluya Hadero, AP News

• Errol Schweizer, Forbes