Search This Blog

Sunday, July 12, 2026

Kuwait says border posts, offshore drilling rig attacked

 

Three land border posts in northern Kuwait and an offshore drilling rig in the country’s territorial waters were attacked, causing material damage and injuring one worker, Kuwait’s Defense Ministry said in a statement on Sunday.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202607116587 

Mexican President Seeking Legal Action Against The US Over Deaths Of Alien Migrants

 Should foreign governments be allowed to support or fund lawsuits against the US government over its immigration and enforcement policies?  US sovereign immunity aside, the very idea of foreigners trying to influence American immigration law through indirect civil suits sounds insane.  Why, oh why, should Americans care what Mexico thinks?

To put the issue in context, it's important to understand that the Mexican government has been actively encouraging and enabling mass illegal immigration into the US for decades.  This strategy accomplishes a few things simultaneously:

First, the southern border acts as a steam valve for poverty stricken malcontents and criminals.  Mexican leaders like to have the option of leaving the door open to citizens crossing illegally into the US en masse because this means less mouths to feed, less strain on social services and less crime for Mexico. 

Second, the Mexican economy relies heavily on foreign remittances.  Illegals from Mexico enter the US, work under the table, then wire around $64 billion back home every year.  Mexico's annual federal welfare programs cost only $57 billion per year.  In other words, remittances from migrants in the US are bigger than Mexico's entire welfare budget.

It has become increasingly clear since Donald Trump took office in 2025 that far too many third-world countries are using the US as a cash cow for their own national economies.  And, they have been doing this primarily through illegal immigration, or, work visa and refugee loopholes.  Without Trump's migrant crackdown, this problem may have never been exposed to the wider public. 

Third, mass immigration acts as a destabilizing element in US politics and economics.  There are many socialist elements within Mexico, not to mention Central and South America, who would like to quietly sabotage the US to make way for "La Raza" - An ideological movement of Hispanic activists that wants to invade and reconquer North America. 

They aren't satisfied with simply bleeding the US for a trickle of wealth.  Rather, like any group of barbarians at the gate, they want to pillage the entire country because they live under the delusion that they're "owed" something.  This agenda, of course, relies heavily on progressive politicians staying in power in the US, which is not currently the case. 

Claudia Sheinbaum said on Thursday that her government plans to file criminal complaints in the U.S. regarding ​Mexican citizens who have died in immigration custody or while being targeted in anti-immigration ‌operations. The goal is to escalate these complaints while supporting civil suits. Fourteen Mexican nationals have died while in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and three more died in arrest operations conducted by the agency, the Mexican government said.

The latest incident in Houston involved an arrest which was disrupted by a Mexican migrant who was not the original target of the operation.  Agents report that the man tried to ram them with his van while they were looking for a different suspect.    

Lorenzo Araujo, a Mexican immigrant who had lived in the United States without authorization for 35 years, was on his way to work with three other men.  When agents tried to stop the vehicle, the encounter quickly escalated when he allegedly tried to run them over.  An agent shot Mr. Araujo in the abdomen. He died at a hospital hours later.  Suspects generally only end up dead when they present a physical threat to ICE agents.   

Mexico's president intends to exploit these events as a way to rally lawfare operations.  She seems to believe that she can leverage against deportation policies by burying the Trump Administration in litigation.  She's not alone.  Democrats are also using similar tactics while ignoring the circumstances of the shootings and the self defense of immigration agents. 

When it comes to deportations, illegal immigrants do not have the same constitutional protections as American citizens.  Due process for migrants only involves identifying them as legal or illegal.  If they are illegal, then they can and should be kicked out of the country with haste.  No trial.  No jury.  No wasted time or wasted taxpayer money.

It makes no sense that Democrats under the Biden Administration can open the borders to millions of illegals without any legal checks and balances, then they demand that the Trump Administration pursue years of court cases to remove just a handful.

Meanwhile, it's obvious that Mexico's government has every reason to subvert the deportation process.  By labeling it a "human rights violation" and creating a legal fog, the Mexicans, like the Democrats, are hoping they can stall the accelerating deportations so that their economy can continue to benefit from the parasitic relationship they have with the US. 

Mexico's only goal is to create as many obstacles as possible with the expectation that Democrats will eventually return to power and open the floodgates once again.  

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/mexican-president-seeking-legal-action-against-us-over-deaths-alien-migrants

'Witness List Expanding...': A Seth Rich Scenario

 by James Howard Kunstler,

"Witness list expanding in multi-conspiracy probe out of Fort Pierce. . . ."

- Paul Sperry, Real Clear investigations.

The scene: February of 2027, a federal courtroom in Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County), Florida, the third day of trial in the RussiaGate matter.

Defendants seated on the right (from the judge’s vantage) are so numerous they require two tables, including John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Strzok & Page, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Monaco, Mary McCord, Christopher Wray, Marc Elias, and seven other former federal officials.

Former President Barack Obama and former Sec’y of State Hillary Clinton, named as “unindicted co-conspirators,” are not present in the courtroom for the sake of decorum. Former MI6 agent, the slippery Christopher Steele, purveyor of the infamous “dossier,” is on-the-lam, whereabouts unknown. The charges against the bunch are Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S. Code § 2384), Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512, 1519), Conspiracy Against Rights / Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), Concealment (18 U.S.C. § 1001).

At 10:00 a.m., a “surprise” witness is ushered into the room...

Gasps erupt from all angles.

The witness is immediately identified by his snow-white hair and beard. Everybody sees it is Julian Assange. He is a surprise witness for security reasons. He has been flown from Sydney to New Delhi to Frankfurt, and finally to Miami in a US government airplane, the lone passenger.

Recall: in June 2024, Assange reached a plea deal with the US DOJ: guilty on one count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defense information. He was sentenced to sixty-two months (time served), crediting the approximately five years he had already spent in Britain’s Belmarsh prison while fighting extradition — but not counting the six years and ten months he was holed-up before that in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. There was no additional jail time, supervision, or financial penalty.

Assange is sworn and seated, led through preliminary questions as to his identity, place of residence, his former occupation running the news service known as Wikileaks, blah blah. The prosecuting federal attorney will now turn to the subject of one Seth Rich — remember him? The twenty-seven-year-old was working for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 as Voter Expansion Data Director. At 4:00 a.m. July 10, 2016, Rich was found dead, shot twice in the back, on Flagler Place NW, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C., in what police called “a botched robbery.”

Rather bizarrely from a police procedural standpoint, Rich’s wallet, stuffed with money, his watch, and his cell phone remained on his person. Only his laptop was taken in the “robbery.” It has been a “cold,” unsolved case all these years.

Sometime before the murder, as early as Spring 2016, well before the Democratic party’s nominating convention, Assange’s Wikileaks received a large packet of information containing as many as 58,000 emails hacked out of the account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. The emails detailed many curious machinations inside the DNC that year, including sketchy efforts underway to derail Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, excerpts from Clinton’s paid private Wall Street speeches (e.g., to Goldman Sachs), references to Clinton’s health problems, her private email server issue, various Clinton foundation dealings, and a lot of strange chatter about “pizza” and other mundane food items that would eventually spawn the “PizzaGate” story alluding to alleged child sex cult activities centered around John Podesta and his brother Tony.

It was quite a juicy load. But Wikileaks sat on it until just before the election. That spring and summer, Hillary was already laboring under the scandal about the private email server she had set up in her suburban Chappaqua, NY, home. She had apparently used it casually when she ran the State Department to conduct official government business, including classified information, instead of her official government email address. That itself was against the law, apart from what else the content of the Podesta email trove revealed. The FBI had been working the server case that spring, and just weeks before the convention, FBI Director Jim Comey made a big public show of exonerating Hillary, declaring incorrectly that he declined to prosecute — since it is not the FBI’s job to prosecute, only investigate, and for the DOJ to actually decide whether to prosecute. But he did add for the record that her doings had been “extremely careless.”

Anyway, Comey’s blunder became a low-grade scandal unto itself, colored by the suspicious meeting a month earlier between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch in her official airplane parked on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport. Both claimed they just talked about their grandchildren. Hence, Comey letting Hillary off the hook in July had the odor of a set-up. She was duly nominated July 26, 2016.

In October, 2016, Wikileaks began dribbling out the hacked Podesta emails they had obtained earlier that year, just in time for the election. To complicate things, the FBI and the New York City police were just then investigating former Rep. Anthony Weiner, husband of Clinton’s closest aide Huma Abedin, for sending sexually explicit messages to a minor. In the course of things, they obtained Weiner’s laptop, which was stuffed with 140,000 additional emails between Ms. Abedin and Hillary. Yikes!

On October 28, 2016 (eleven days before the election), Comey sent a letter to Congress notifying them that the FBI was reviewing these newly discovered emails to determine if they contained classified information (they did), in effect re-opening Hillary’s private server case. Comey later testified he felt obligated to inform Congress to avoid accusations of a cover-up close to the election. He called it a “no-win situation.” On November 6, 2016 (two days before Election Day), Comey announced the review found no new evidence warranting charges, reaffirming the July conclusion.

All of this intrigue revolved around the question of who, exactly, hacked those DNC emails. In June 2016, a cyber-security outfit called CrowdStrike, run by former FBI agent Shawn Henry, identified two Russian intelligence-linked groups — Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear — as responsible for the DNC hack. By that time, the Steele Dossier was already circulating between the CIA, the FBI, and the White House. The Russia collusion story (the RussiaGate hoax) was busy being born. Russia Russia Russia !!! It was all the people of the USA heard the whole four years of the first Trump term.

Which brings us forward to the courtroom scene, February, 2027, Julian Assange in the witness chair. The young lead federal prosecutor (one of several) in the room, finishes his preliminary questions and asks Assange: “Are you willing to tell the court now, who exactly was your source for the DNC emails?” Assange has kept it secret for all these years. But he had been very badly abused by some of the very US government officials who are sitting at the two defendant’s tables, and he is rather sore about all the years he had to hide out in the Ecuadorean embassy in London before the Americans induced the British authorities to stuff him in Belmarsh prison for another five.

“Yes,” he says placidly.

“It was a young man named Seth Rich. He copied it onto a thumb-drive directly from the DNC.”

And that is how all the bullshit about RussiaGate finally dissolves into a rancid cloud of sedition for the folks slumped in their seats on the defendants’ side of the courtroom.

Shout out to the valiant podcaster Mel K for pointing us in the right direction on this one.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/witness-list-expanding-seth-rich-scenario

Socialism As Royal Road to Fraud

 by Roger Simon

It’s not just the election of Mamdani & Co. If we are to believe Axios, socialism is the “new big thing” for both our political parties. Under the title “Why both left and right have rejected free markets,” they wrote the following in their telegraphic parlance:

“Why it matters: The result is one of the biggest shifts in U.S. economic policy since the Reagan revolution, overturning decades of orthodoxy on trade, manufacturing, housing, health care and corporate power.

The shared skepticism of the old economic consensus masks vastly different visions for what comes next.

  • It’s evident in everything from the Trump administration taking government stakes in dozens of private companies to socialist candidates winning Democratic primaries promising a more active government role in the economy.”

They go on to say that the GOP has deserted Milton Friedman for Alexander Hamilton-style interventionism.

Maybe. But meanwhile, a young man named Nick Shirley has become a national hero, doing pretty much the opposite, going about the country, unmasking fraud in these same government interventionist programs on a scale that could only be called massive.

This, from poster @jayplemons, appeared on X July 10, just one day before Axios trumpeted something resembling uniparty socialism.

“Nick Shirley uncovers an adult care in Flushing, Queens with 7,000 phantom members.

“Nick: ‘This public document says you have 7,899 members.’

“Employee: ‘No, we don’t have 7,000 members.’

“Nick: ‘So you’re overbilling then? You’re getting $1,600 per patient—that’s how you got $12.9 million in 2024.”

“Employee: ‘Please leave.’

Amplifying @jayplemons, Shirley himself wrote (same day) of some $44 million being siphoned off from American taxpayers by the Korean Mafia.

The young man’s confrontations with fraudsters have been going on for some time now. It almost seems as if half the Somalis (legal and illegal) are driving around in Mercedes Benzes on a whole lot of our dimes. Most of that is in Minnesota, where, thanks to Shirley opening the door, prosecutors have estimated the fraud in government programs, non-existent child care facilities, health care, and so forth, at more than $9 billion. Shirley has estimated the number in California to be more like $24 billion, which, not surprisingly, got Gavin Newsom’s nose out of joint.

How could this all be?

Unfortunately, the answer is too obvious: No one’s responsible, or really wants to be. No one is watching the store.

Well, supposedly elected officials and their minions, but are they really? For the most part, they are only held to the flame at election time, when they often have the most reason to placate the very communities where the fraud is rampant. They want their votes. In some cases, when it gets too extreme (e.g., Tim Walz), the politician pays the price. But for the most part, their malfeasance is ignored or forgotten by the time the next election rolls around.

In tawdry old capitalism, the entrepreneur and/or owner is usually directly responsible, not only to themselves but to their investors. They have skin in the game. Yes, there’s fraud, but arguably less of it. The risk is greater. If you get caught, you pay. And lots of people, including your customers, are watching.

The more socialistic, the more controlled from above, the economy, the greater the potential for corruption. It’s time to amend and extend Lady Thatcher’s famous aphorism, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” to encompass the added possibility, likely the inevitability, that it creates fertile ground for even more stratospheric fraud than it has in our country (e. g. what happened in Venezuela).

This is similar to the problem many associate with public service unions, where there really isn’t anyone other than politicians negotiating with them. Citizens have little voice. We see this writ large in our quasi-socialistic public education system, where the various teachers’ unions’ negotiations have resulted in our country spending among the most per student globally, with some of the worst results.

Socialism, in most respects, is an inefficient system. The Chinese, of all people, understood this and largely abandoned socialism in practice during Deng Xiaoping's ascendancy (1980s). Deng engineered the evolution of that giant country from brutal communist penury to state-managed capitalism (oligarchy). Maintaining socialism as propagandistic rhetoric, China has been successful in lifting millions out of poverty through market economics, even creating billionaires, in a system that remains totalitarian.

And forget about Democratic Socialism. There’s no such thing, even though most left-wing despots began by asserting their democratic roots. Mao himself claimed to be democratic in his early writings. After that came the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, with its estimates of over 50 million dying. Nothing is comparable in human history.

Mamdani’s followers, even the NYC mayor himself, should take note of that, but they are likely to ignore or deliberately disregard it. The siren song of “equal outcomes” is too strong, today’s naive version of Jacobinism too prevalent.

We are at a turning point in our society. The President exclaims we will never be communist. That’s fine, but not nearly enough. Our youth need an education in what this really means in actual history. It is rarely taught. Or when it is the truth is scrubbed.

Pointing out that socialism is such fertile ground for fraud because such fraud is obviously contemporary, very real, and, in some cases, quite personal, is one way to reach the many who have otherwise been blinded. It won’t do it all, but it's something to counter the myriad social media posts brainwashing our youth.

Thank you, Nick Shirley, for bringing this to the fore. Don't stop now, please. You deserve a Pulitzer, if that award were still worth the engraved certificate (from Columbia University, no less) it is written on. I have, with AI’s help, proposed a better one above.

https://americanrefugees.substack.com/p/socialism-as-royal-road-to-fraud

Trump’s Australia Retirement Idea Is Not Social Security Privatization

 President Trump has now said more than once that he likes something about Australia’s retirement system. That has made everyone nervous, confused, or both.

Whenever an American president praises private accounts, people hear the old alarm bell: privatize Social Security. But that is not the best reading of what Trump is floating. The better frame is this: not privatizing, hybridizing.

At the July 6 White House event launching Trump Accounts, Trump pointed toward an adult retirement savings idea inspired by Australia while distinguishing it from the new child accounts. The Australian-style idea would be for adults and working people. Trump Accounts are baby wealth-building. A universal adult retirement account is retirement policy.

Australia Has A Mandatory Account Layer

Australia’s system is not simply “private accounts.” It has three main pieces: a compulsory employer-funded retirement account, a public means-tested Age Pension, and voluntary private saving, including housing.

The piece Trump appears to like is the first one: superannuation. Australia requires employers to contribute to workers’ super accounts. The Australian Taxation Office lists the Superannuation Guarantee rate at 12% of qualifying earnings. Australia does not merely tell workers to save. It makes retirement saving part of the employment system.

The United States mandates Social Security payroll contributions, but it does not require employers to provide or contribute to a retirement plan. Workers and employers each pay 6.2% of covered wages into Social Security, for a combined 12.4%, up to the taxable maximum, according to the Social Security Administration. But the layer on top of Social Security is voluntary, uneven, and highly dependent on whether a worker has the right job.

The Australian comparison does not show that America should scrap Social Security. It shows that America’s second layer is too weak.

The U.S. Already Has The Annuity Australia Lacks

Here is the part people miss. The United States already has something Australia should envy: Social Security pays lifetime benefits. You cannot outlive it. That annuity feature is not a detail; it is the crown jewel. Annuities improve people’s mental life and raises the quality of old age.

Australia’s super system builds assets and achieves broad participation, but it has a retirement-income problem. Account balances can be spent down. Unless retirees buy or hold annuity-like products, they still face the risk of living longer than their money.

So the best American lesson is not “replace Social Security with accounts.” It is the opposite. Keep Social Security as the guaranteed lifetime floor and add a universal, portable account layer on top. Social Security provides longevity insurance. Universal accounts provide ownership, portability, and market participation.

Voluntary Saving Is Not Cutting It

The math is brutal. Social Security replaces about 40% of annual preretirement earnings for the average worker. That is essential, but it is not enough to maintain most workers’ living standards by itself.

Aon’s retirement adequacy study estimates that the average full-career worker needs total retirement resources equal to 16.4 times final pay to maintain preretirement living standards through retirement. Social Security covers the equivalent of 5.3 times pay, leaving a private retirement need of 11.1 times pay by age 67. A worker starting at age 25 needs annual private contributions of about 16% of pay, counting both employee and employer contributions. That is in addition to Social Security payroll taxes.

Now compare that target with the actual U.S. system. BLS reports that in March 2025 only 45% of civilian workers participated in a defined contribution retirement plan, and 50% of private-industry workers did so. Vanguard reports that among participants in its defined contribution plans, the average total contribution rate in 2024 was 12.0% of pay, counting both worker and employer contributions. That is below the 16% target even among people already inside a plan.

So the problem is not that Americans are uniquely irresponsible. The problem is institutional. We ask workers to save like Australians, but give them a voluntary 401(k) maze.

The Match System Rewards The Already Stable

The U.S. 401(k) match sounds fair. Put money in and your employer puts money in. But workers who cannot afford to contribute often get neither the match nor the tax benefit.

Research by MIT Professor Taha Choukhmane and coauthors finds that tax and employer matching incentives channel more benefits to workers who already contribute more, widening gaps by race and parental income. The match system is not neutral plumbing; it amplifies inequality in retirement wealth accumulation.

That is why a universal account cannot just be another optional account. It must be automatic, portable, simple, low fee, and supported for low-income workers.

The Retirement Savings for Americans Act Is Already Sitting There

There is already a policy model for this: the Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA). Its lead bipartisan, bicameral sponsors are Sens. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Reps. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA) and Terri Sewell (D-AL). Their proposal gives eligible workers access to portable, tax-advantaged retirement accounts, with federal matching support for low- and middle-income workers.

The RSAA, in plain English is that workers without an employer plan would get a simple account that follows them from job to job. Employers would auto-enroll their workers at 3% of income. Everyone is in! Full- and part-time workers without a plan will now have one. There will be a 1% automatic federal contribution for low- and moderate-income workers, up to a 4% federal match, private ownership of assets, and simple, low-fee investment options modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan.

Trump’s April 2026 order establishing TrumpIRA.gov moves in this direction by seeking to expand access to retirement savings options and to prepare workers for the Saver’s Match. But a website is not enough. Australia did not get broad participation by building a website and hoping workers found it. Australia made retirement saving part of the employment bargain.

The conservative objection is that compulsory saving raises labor costs. That is true. Retirement costs money. The question is whether we finance it openly through wages, employer contributions, and taxes, or hide the cost until people reach old age with too little money.

The progressive objection is that private accounts can distract from Social Security. That warning is real. But the answer is not to reject universal accounts. The answer is to insist they sit on top of Social Security and never substitute for it.

America needs a fully funded Social Security system and universal retirement accounts. Not one. Both. Australia is not a model to import lock, stock, and barrel. It is a mirror. It shows what the United States refuses to admit: voluntary retirement saving cannot do mandatory work.

Appendix: What Forbes Readers Need To Know

1. What Are Trump Accounts?

Trump Accounts are tax-advantaged investment accounts for U.S. citizens under age 18. The IRS guidance on Trump Accounts says the pilot program provides a one-time $1,000 federal contribution for eligible U.S. citizen children born from Jan. 1, 2025, through Dec. 31, 2028, if an election is made and the child has a valid Social Security number. They are not Social Security. They are not a full blown adult retirement system.

2. What Is Australia’s Superannuation Guarantee?

Australia’s Superannuation Guarantee requires employers to contribute to workers’ super accounts. The current rate is 12%. From July 2026, the ATO describes the base as qualifying earnings. Under the old employer guidance, the relevant phrase was ordinary time earnings. For Forbes readers, the economic point is simpler than the terminology: Australia requires a real employer-funded retirement contribution.

The account generally follows the worker. The balance stays invested. The new employer can contribute to the same account. That portability is what U.S. workers need but often do not have.

3. What Is The Australian Age Pension?

Australia also has a public Age Pension. It is not the same as U.S. Social Security. It is tax-financed, noncontributory, and means-tested. Services Australia lists the maximum normal Age Pension rate at A$1,200.90 per fortnight for a single person and A$905.20 per fortnight for each member of a couple, before tax and including supplements.

But not everyone gets it. Eligibility depends on age, residence, income, and assets. Services Australia explains the income test and assets test. Age Pension age is 67 or older, and higher-income or higher-asset retirees can receive a partial pension or no pension.

4. How Is U.S. Social Security Different?

U.S. Social Security is contributory social insurance. Workers qualify through covered work. Benefits are based on lifetime covered earnings and claiming age, not on the retiree’s current wealth. The Social Security Administration publishes the taxable contribution and benefit base each year.

One-sentence comparison: Australia gives older people a tax-financed, means-tested public floor; the United States gives covered workers an earnings-related lifetime benefit.

5. How Much Do Workers Need Beyond Social Security?

Aon estimates that the average full-career U.S. worker needs total retirement resources of 16.4 times final pay. Social Security covers 5.3 times pay, leaving 11.1 times pay needed from private retirement resources by age 67.

Aon estimates that a worker starting at age 25 needs annual private retirement contributions equal to 16% of pay, including employee and employer contributions. Starting at age 30 raises the target to 20%; starting at 35 raises it to 24%. This is private saving on top of Social Security payroll taxes.

6. How Far Short Is The U.S. Voluntary System?

The BLS participation data show that only 45% of civilian workers participated in a defined contribution plan in March 2025. Vanguard’s 2025 report shows that participants in its plans had an average total contribution rate of 12.0% in 2024, including both employee and employer contributions.

A rough all-worker calculation shows the gap. If only 45% of workers participate and participants average 12.0% of pay, the economy-wide equivalent is about 5.4% of pay. That is not an official national average. It is a back-of-the-envelope way to show the order of magnitude. Aon says workers need about 16% in private saving from age 25. The voluntary system appears to deliver far less across the whole workforce.

7. Why Is The Employer Match Not Enough?

Employer matches help people who contribute. They do little or nothing for workers who cannot afford to contribute, are not eligible, or do not have a plan. That is why matching can widen inequality. Choukhmane and coauthors find that the current system of tax and employer matching incentives disproportionately benefits workers who already save more and groups with higher contribution rates.

The U.S. match system is not neutral. It rewards workers with stable jobs, disposable income, and good plan access.

8. What Would An American Hybrid Look Like?

An American hybrid would have five pieces: fully funded Social Security; universal retirement accounts for workers without good workplace plans; automatic enrollment; low-cost pooled investment options modeled on the Thrift Savings Plan; and a government match for low- and moderate-income workers.

That is close to the Retirement Savings for Americans Act model. It is also the best version of what an Australian-inspired system could mean in the United States.

9. What is the Key Take Away?

The question is not whether America should copy Australia. It should not.

The question is whether America should learn from Australia’s most important institutional lesson: if a retirement saving tier is necessary, it cannot be voluntary for half the workforce and still be called a system.

Social Security should be protected and fully funded. But Social Security alone was never meant to carry the entire burden of maintaining preretirement living standards for the average worker.

Trump’s Australia idea will be dangerous if it becomes a substitute for Social Security. It could be useful if it becomes what America actually needs: a universal, portable, funded account layer on top of Social Security. That is not privatization. That is building the missing second floor.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2026/07/09/trumps-australia-retirement-idea-is-not-social-security-privatization/

Power cuts for Iranian industries rise to two days a week

 

Power restrictions on Iranian industrial units have increased to two days a week, the secretary-general of Iran’s House of Industry, Mine and Trade said on Sunday, warning the curbs may expand further.

Arman Khaleghi told ISNA that the limits on electricity supply could, as in previous years, extend from the evening to midnight.

He said a proposal had been made to count the blackout days as official holidays for production units to offset part of the losses caused by the power restrictions.

Khaleghi said the proposal had not yet been implemented.

https://www.iranintl.com/en/liveblog/202607116587