Social Security Trustees
Social Security is a vitally important program that provides benefits to millions of Americans. Yet, for more than a decade, the two public trustee positions on the Social Security Board of Trustees have remained vacant.
These positions are critical because they provide independent oversight, ensuring the program's financial reports are objective and transparent.
Without public trustees, the board consists entirely of administration officials, which raises concerns about political bias in reporting and decision making.
My friend Dave Walker, along with other former trustees, has emphasized that public trustees serve as the voice of the public by helping to educate citizens about the true financial condition of Social Security and the need for reforms to maintain solvency.
The absence of public trustees is particularly troubling given the looming challenges facing Social Security.
The OASI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted by 2032.
If this is not addressed, benefits could be cut by 23% across the board.
This underscores the importance of having independent trustees who can advocate for and ensure that the public receives accurate information about the program's future.
Appointing qualified public trustees would not only restore accountability, but it would also help break the gridlock in Washington by providing bipartisan credibility to reform proposals. (For an overview, please see: To reform and protect Social Security, let’s start by appointing public trustees)
The Social Security Administration acknowledges that the two public trustee positions are meant to be filled by presidential appointment and confirmed by the Senate.
These trustees serve four-year terms and are traditionally selected to represent both major political parties.
Their absence since 2015 has left a gap in oversight, depriving the public of independent voices in discussions about the program’s sustainability.
Filling these positions should be a priority for the president, as it would strengthen confidence in the system and demonstrate a commitment to protecting the program for future generations. (An explanation here: Signatories to the Trustees Reports)
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La.
We have all grown tired of government shutdowns, during which government workers don't get paid, but the Congressmen who caused these shutdowns do. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., has introduced legislation aimed at addressing this imbalance.
His proposals, enumerated in the ‒ "No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act" and the "Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act" ‒ would ensure that members of Congress do not receive paychecks during a shutdown.
In fact, under the latter bill, their pay would be withheld in escrow until the start of the next Congress, meaning lawmakers would not receive back pay immediately after a shutdown ends. (Significant details here: Kennedy introduces critical bills prohibiting lawmakers from receiving a paycheck during government shutdowns - Press releases - U.S. Senator John Kennedy)
These common-sense bills are designed to align lawmakers' incentives with those of citizens who are negatively impacted by shutdowns. By ensuring that Congress "feels the same pain" as federal workers, these bills seek to discourage future shutdowns.
Kennedy has argued that if Congress cannot do its job and fund the government, its members do not deserve a paycheck.
The American people agree. (More: Sen John Kennedy introduces bills to halt Congress pay during shutdown | Fox News)
Trump and Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani
The recent meeting between President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Mamdani was a refreshing reminder that dialogue is better than rhetoric.
The two leaders had previously exchanged sharp criticisms.
When they met face-to-face at the White House though, the tone was very different.
Both described the meeting as productive, focusing on shared concerns such as affordability, housing, and crime prevention.
The president even praised Mamdani, saying he wanted him to succeed as mayor and that they agreed on more than he had expected. (Read: Trump offers Zohran Mamdani nothing but praise after their first meeting)
Mamdani emphasized that the meeting was about delivering for New Yorkers, particularly on the cost of living.
He noted that both he and Trump campaigned on affordability, and their discussion centered on practical solutions to make life more manageable for residents.
This shift from trading insults in the media to finding common ground in person needs to happen more often.
It shows that even leaders with stark ideological differences can find shared priorities when they sit down together. (More here: NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani says meeting with Trump was productive. Here's how. - CBS New York)
The cordial nature of the meeting also sends an important signal to the public.
It demonstrates that political leaders can rise above partisan rhetoric to focus on the needs of their constituents.
For New Yorkers, the meeting offered hope that collaboration between city and federal officials could lead to progress on issues such as housing affordability and public safety.
More broadly, it serves as an example of how constructive engagement can replace hostility, fostering cooperation even in a polarized environment.
In this sense, the Trump-Mamdani meeting is a reminder that politics does not need to be defined by division; it can also be a platform for building consensus. (Details: Trump praises Mamdani after White House meeting: "I want him to do a great job")
For more information, please visit www.JoeFromTexas.com.
Joe from Texas is a family man with children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. He's experienced tremendous success and lived the American Dream. His beliefs are both straightforward and deeply held. He believes in God, his family, and the United States of America. Read Joe Penland, Sr.'s Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.