A Controversial Social Security Initiative, Biden’s Tech Agreement Benefits the CCP, and Additional Insights

Libertarian: An Outrageous Social Security Giveaway

The Senate is preparing to increase “Social Security benefits for public sector employees who receive pensions and did not contribute to Social Security during their public sector careers,” declares Eric Boehm at Reason. This move will cost “almost $200 billion” and will “accelerate the insolvency of Social Security for all beneficiaries.” In fact, it could “result in an average loss of over $25,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits” for couples, as it hastens “the necessary across-the-board benefit cuts” to address insolvency. Congress must undertake “a comprehensive reform of Social Security” to ensure “retirement security for all Americans.” Instead, it chooses to “pass a special giveaway to a select group while leaving Social Security in an even more precarious position.”

Conservative: Biden’s Tech Agreement Benefits CCP, Harms US

“President Joe Biden’s administration has just consented to a five-year extension of the science and technology sharing agreement with China,” complains Tom Rogan at the Washington Examiner. This is a “poor decision,” as China exploits such access “to manipulate otherwise civilian technologies for military and other malicious purposes.” Biden’s action conveys the wrong signal “to allies including France, Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom,” all of whom are “eager to deepen their technological dealings with China to attract new investments” but “are proceeding with caution” because “they are aware of the U.S. concerns regarding China’s access to military-enabling technology.” This clearly “weakens the incoming Trump administration.”

Mideast Comment: Support the Kurds Post-Assad!

“America shares not only mutual interests but also common values” with the Kurdish people, who are “reliable allies in tough times,” state Thomas S. Kaplan & Bernard-Henri Lévy in The Wall Street Journal. Now “is the time for America to stand by them.” This does not necessitate U.S. troops on the ground in Syria or Iraq: “The Kurds already know how to fight,” as they demonstrated against ISIS, “given the right support.” “Coordinated and vigorous backing” for the Kurds would aid in stabilizing Syria, containment of “over 10,000 hard-core ISIS operatives currently in Kurdish custody,” countering “Turkish hegemonic ambitions,” and “further weakening the disintegrated remnants of Tehran’s self-proclaimed ‘axis of resistance,’ which poses the greatest barrier to Arab-Israeli peace.”

Foreign Affairs: Consequences of Yoon’s Downfall

South Korea’s National Assembly “has voted to impeach President Yoon Suk Yeol” following his attempt to impose martial law on Dec. 3; this represents “certainly the end of his most pivotal” achievement, “forging a security alliance with Japan,” expresses concern Gordon G. Chang at The Hill. Japan and South Korea “have historically regarded each other as adversaries,” but in August 2023, Yoon met with “President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida” at Camp David to establish a trilateral partnership, JAROKUS, despite “intense animosity in Korea toward Japan” stemming from the “harsh Japanese occupation until the end of World War II.” Should Yoon be ousted, the likely next president of South Korea is Lee Jae-myung, who “would shift South Korea’s course, moving away from its primary allies, the U.S. and Japan, and redirecting towards its principal adversaries, chiefly North Korea and China.”

Food Watch: RFK’s Threat to Agriculture

Appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as the head of Health and Human Services could lead to “serious adverse effects for U.S. farmers and consumers,” cautions Alex Smith at Breakthrough Journal. Kennedy may “modify pesticide regulations, hinder biotechnology advancements, and challenge [genetically modified] products already available” due to his “conspiratorial mindset” and “limited grasp of agronomy and economics.” Most alarmingly: “Reversing biotechnology progress in agriculture would result in decreased yields, increased food prices, and a higher global demand for agricultural land.” Beyond the “serious ramifications for global hunger,” it “would undoubtedly drive up [U.S.] food costs while making farms less profitable by escalating labor expenses and pesticide use.” In summary, “the stark reality of RFK’s stance is a future with insufficient food supply.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board