Friday, July 24, 2026
Fox News Poll Shows Democrats With An Election Advantage
Sen. Durbin Believes Congress Can Compromise On A Plan To Save Social Security
The following op-ed is by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). He believes that though an open debate the current Congress can come together and find a workable plan to fund Social Security far into the future. I'm not sure that's true, but he deserves to have his say. Here is what he has written:
Seventy million Americans count on Social Security to afford food, medication, housing and utilities. It’s a bedrock promise to Americans that, after a lifetime of hard work, they will have a secure retirement.
The program is there for the grandfather who worked his whole life trying to provide for his family but has seen his savings run out. Or the widowed mother who stayed home to raise four children and is counting on Social Security for retirement income.
But according to a report published last month by the Social Security Board of Trustees, the program will face a shortfall in just six years, when its trust fund runs out. In 2032, Social Security will only be able to pay 78% of benefits. That means seniors and other beneficiaries across the country would see an average cut of $450 per month. For many, losing $450 means rent or utility bills or a prescription is no longer affordable. And that cut would especially hurt the nearly one out of five Social Security beneficiaries with no other source of income.
Some critics believe the most prudent course of action is to delay the legislative process of extending solvency. They believe that a more favorable balance of power in Washington will yield their desired policy outcome. But if Democrats refuse to act until we control both chambers of Congress and the presidency — a feat that would take at least two election cycles — we run the risk of skating even closer to the insolvency cliff.
Meanwhile, delaying action makes the policy choices more drastic. Had Congress acted in 2009, a payroll tax increase of less than 2% would have kept Social Security solvent for 75 years. Today, payroll taxes would have to increase by nearly 4.5% to close that gap.
Republicans and Democrats alike were elected to make responsible decisions for Americans. If we want real solutions to rescue Social Security before it is too late, we need buy-in from both parties.
Sixteen years ago, Congress had an opportunity to preserve Social Security through the bipartisan group known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. I served on that panel. The plan we came up with was far from perfect, but it would have secured the program an additional 75 years of solvency. Ultimately, it failed to garner enough support, and our inaction led to today’s challenge.
It’s easy to be cynical about the problem. That’s why one-third of young Americans think Social Security will not be around for them when they retire. Faced with the skyrocketing costs of attending college, buying a home and starting a family, they feel the deck is unfairly stacked against them.
But we do not need to resign ourselves to a doomsday scenario. Nor do we need to wait for the elusive “perfect political moment.” Many of my colleagues have worked for years on serious, meaningful proposals to address the looming insolvency cliff. Yet, they’ve never received votes on the Senate Floor. We do not have a shortage of ideas; we have a lack of will.
Recently, with the support of a bipartisan group of senators, I introduced legislation to ensure Congress finally takes up this challenge. The PROMISE Act would open the Senate and House to debate and vote on different proposals in a transparent and bipartisan way. Under my bill, the fixes proposed in recent years would get the chance for full debate and consideration.
Some of my closest allies may think this notion — restoring the Senate to its long-forgotten moniker of the most deliberative body on earth — is too radical. I respectfully disagree.
Under our bipartisan plan, we would gather public input and testimony, the Senate and House committees would hold hearings, mark-up and adopt amendments, debate and consider alternate proposals on the floor — for days and days if necessary. Any measure would still need a filibuster-proof 60 votes on the floor. Such extensive deliberation is almost unheard of in today’s Senate, but it is sorely needed.
And we would do it all in a transparent way. Amendments for consideration would be published in the Congressional Record — a far cry from the backroom, late-night, secret deals for which Capitol Hill is often critiqued.
While some may disagree with this approach, I trust we share the goal of protecting and preserving Social Security for all. Americans sent us to Congress not to observe problems, but to solve them, and there is no greater long-term challenge before Congress than saving this program. Let’s not run away from our responsibility.
Thursday, July 23, 2026
Latest Job Approval Numbers For Donald Trump
The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between July 17th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 1,602 adults (including 1,432 registered voters). The Margin of error is 3.3 points for adults and 3.2 points for registered voters.
Net Approval Of Trump's Handling Of The Economy Is Negative 42 Points
The chart above reflects the results of the American Research Group Poll -- done between July 16th and 20th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3 point margin of error.
Trump Wants To Fatten His Bank Account By Selling Insider Trading Info
Starting August 1, Trump Media and Technology Group will launch a new data feed aimed at high-frequency trading firms whose profits are made by making trades a fraction of a second faster than everyone else.
It will provide “licensed, real-time access to posts from the highest-ranking Truth Social accounts.” In other words, the feed will let you know what Trump has said before anyone else knows, meaning it’s well worth the tab that Truth Social will charge to see Trump’s posts before the rest of the public sees them — up to $100,000 per month.
That’s a pittance relative to what could be made, because Trump’s words on Truth Social — about his war in Iran, about his latest tariffs, about the Fed — have caused the stock market to soar or drop. So, if you’re a trader on Wall Street, you’ll make millions if you know what he’s posting a fraction of a second before everyone else knows. Perhaps more to the point, if you’re behind on that news, “you’ll get crushed,” as one hedge-fund executive told the Financial Times.
No wonder Trump Media’s interim CEO Kevin McGurn is gloating that the feed will “become a meaningful, ongoing source of revenue for the company, creating lasting value for shareholders.” Trump Media has been unprofitable until now.
Trump, of course, is the company’s largest shareholder.
The scheme is Trump’s most brazen way to illegally profit off his presidency and enrich his Wall Street insider friends.
I say illegally because the Constitution lists “bribery” as a reason to remove a president from office, and the federal ban on bribing public officials also expressly applies to a president. (Whether these provisions can be enforced against a president who’s been given blanket immunity from “official acts” by the Supreme Court is another matter.)
The good news, though, is Americans are catching on to insider trading, and they hate it — so much so that House Republican leaders are now teeing up a vote this week on a bill that would create new guardrails for lawmakers trading stocks.
The “Stop Insider Trading Act” would bar members of Congress and their families from purchasing new shares of stock and require them to file a notice of their plans to sell shares at least seven days ahead of time.
Most Democrats say the measure doesn’t go far enough because it allows members to keep shares of stock they already own, in contrast with a competing bipartisan proposal that bars members from trading individual shares of stock altogether. And one provision Republicans have snuck into the measure —and that must be removed if they want any Democratic votes — deters mail-in voting.
The point is that at the same time Trump is rolling out a new tool to give traders more immediate access to his market-moving posts on Truth Social — if they’ll pay him up to $100,000 a month for it — Congress is limiting how members can profit from inside information they obtain through elected office.
The American public is so disgusted by corruption in Washington that even Republican lawmakers want something to show they’re not in the swamp.
Trump doesn’t give a damn about the public’s mounting revulsion at corruption. He’s not up for reelection. He doesn’t care that his polls are in the cellar. All he wants to do is make even more money, exert more power, and get even with people who have gotten in his way.
But the public wants his swamp drained.
Democrats, take note. Three months from now, ask Americans two related questions: Do they think they’re better off than they were before Trump became president again? Do they approve of the most corrupt White House in American history?
The answer to both will be a resounding no. And the best way for Americans to act on their disgust will be to kick the Republican bums out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)