What you’ll do: People can volunteer as individuals or in groups to sort and pack food and produce boxes at the warehouse. Other jobs include cleaning and tidying the warehouse and coolers. Westside Food Bank encourages food drives for its programs of non-expired food items, or you can just make individual donations at the warehouse. The Westside Food Bank’s partner agencies serve the neighborhoods of Santa Monica, Venice, Culver City, West Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Inglewood and the LAX area, as well as the West Los Angeles VA and several college campuses.
When: Volunteers are typically needed on weekdays in the mornings and afternoons. Corporate volunteer shifts are typically scheduled on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Weekend volunteer opportunities can be arranged by emailing[email protected].
Where: Volunteers are needed at the warehouse in Santa Monica Mondays-Thursdays or at their mobile pantries around their service area including the Gerard Mobile Pantry, VAP Mobile Pantry and West LA Civic Center Mobile Pantry.
Details: Register online for volunteer opportunities. Drop off food donations at the food bank between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday. Frozen and/or refrigerated foods can be accepted by calling (310) 828-6016 beforehand. Appointments are required to drop off large collections of food.
Selena Gomez stunned in satin at the 2025 Rare Impact Fund BenefitCredit: GettyThe singer draped in purple at the LA eventCredit: Getty
The former Disney star, who recently celebrated one month of marriage to music producer and songwritter Benny Blanco, launched the Rare Impact Fund in 2020 to raise funds and awareness for youth mental health globally.
According to Vogue, the event, hosted by US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, raised more than $600,000.
Earlier in the week, Selena’s ‘unnecessarily cruel’ comments landed her in hot water.
The star came under fire for boasting that herbillion-dollar branddoesn’t “use real models” for its beauty campaigns.
While Selena, was attempting to deliver a positive message about how Rare Beauty highlights real, natural features, many took offence to the comments.
The company had used hundreds of different models since it launched in September 2020 – making many feel Selena’s comments disregard their talents and professions.
Her remarks caught the eye of one Rare Beauty model who spoke exclusively to The U.S. Sun about hearing Selena’s comments.
The model, who did not wish to be named due to fear of not being hired for future campaigns, has been working with the brand since 2024.
“I actually cried when I heard Selena’s comments,” the model claimed, who then added: “I was already having a bad day and was feeling really sensitive and emotional.”
She continued: “I was feeling nervous about some career stuff, and then I saw that video of her saying I’m not even a real model.
“It hit me at the worst time because now I’m like… ‘what am I even doing?’
“I thought this would be a big break for me, and to be told by the founder of the company that I look up to that I am not ‘real’ at my job?
“It’s degrading and embarrassing. The number of family and friends who sent me that clip after was mortifying.”
The global star launched the Rare Impact Fund in 2020 to raise funds and awareness for youth mental health globallyCredit: GettyThe event, hosted by US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, raised more than $600,000Credit: GettySelena looked like one of the popular Quality Street treatsCredit: Alamy
Exactly a year after the Eaton fire broke out, musicians are banding together once more for an upcoming benefit show, called A Concert for Altadena.
As a way to both raise funds and bring the community together, the night is set to include performances from musicians like Jackson Browne, Dawes & Friends, Aloe Blacc, Jenny Lewis, Everclear, Stephen Stills, Mandy Moore, Judith Hill, Brad Paisley, Ozomatli, Brandon Flowers of the Killers and more.
Many of the featured acts have ties to Los Angeles and Altadena specifically, like Dawes, an indie band from Altadena who notably sang a lively rendition of “I Love L.A.” at this year’s Grammys ceremony. Moore, who is also performing, similarly lost their homes in the fire.
“I’ve seen firsthand how music can mobilize people for good. This concert brings together artists, fans, and neighbors for something bigger than all of us — recovery, hope, and rebuilding lives,” said Grammy winner Eric Krasno. The guitarist, who also lived in Altadena, helped organize the event and is set to perform.
Even behind the scenes, people like Kevin Lyman, who founded the Vans Warped Tour and is a longtime Altadena resident, is working as the event’s lead producer.
“Music has always been a force for community. With this event, we’re not just putting on a show — we’re helping Altadena rebuild homes, restore businesses, and heal hearts. This night is about unity and purpose,” said Lyman.
All of the proceeds from the show will go to the Pasadena Community Foundation’s Eaton Fire Relief & Recovery Fund, which helps provide resources to families impacted, and the Altadena Builds Back Foundation, which focuses on the long-term recovery of housing in the neighborhood.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has posted a notice on its website saying federal food aid will not go out Nov. 1, raising the stakes for families nationwide as the government shutdown drags on.
The new notice comes after the Trump administration said it would not tap roughly $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, flowing into November. That program helps about 1 in 8 Americans buy groceries.
“Bottom line, the well has run dry,” the USDA notice says. “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats.”
The shutdown, which began Oct. 1, is now the second-longest on record. While the Republican administration took steps leading up to the shutdown to ensure SNAP benefits were paid this month, the cutoff would expand the impact of the impasse to a wider swath of Americans — and some of those most in need — unless a political resolution is found in just a few days.
The administration blames Democrats, who say they will not agree to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate with them on extending expiring subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Not doing so, they note, would raise premiums for millions of Americans. Republicans say Democrats must first agree to reopen the government before they will negotiate.
Democratic lawmakers have written to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins requesting to use contingency funds to cover the bulk of next month’s benefits.
But a USDA memo that surfaced Friday says that “contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.” The document says the money is reserved for such things as helping people in disaster areas.
It cited Hurricane Melissa, which grew into a Category 4 storm in the Caribbean on Sunday — though it is not expected to threaten the U.S. — as an example of why it’s important to have the money available to mobilize quickly in the event of a disaster.
The prospect of families not receiving food aid has deeply concerned states run by both parties.
Some states have pledged to keep SNAP benefits flowing even if the federal program halts payments, but there are questions about whether U.S. government directives may allow that to happen. The USDA memo also says states would not be reimbursed for temporarily picking up the cost.
Other states are telling SNAP recipients to be ready for the benefits to stop. Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example, are advising recipients to identify food pantries and other groups that help with food.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) accused Republicans and Trump of not agreeing to negotiate.
“The reality is, if they sat down to try to negotiate, we could probably come up with something pretty quickly,” Murphy said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We could open up the government on Tuesday or Wednesday, and there wouldn’t be any crisis in the food stamp program.”
The Federal Reserve has shifted to rate cuts, which could be a boon for companies that rely on consumer spending.
The Federal Reserve just cut interest rates. The goal was, basically, to protect the U.S. economy from falling into a recession.
Wall Street is expecting additional rate cuts from here, which could lead to positive outcomes for these three consumer goods companies. Each one comes with a different set of risks and potential rewards. Here’s why these stocks could be worth examining today, before more rate cuts are made.
Image source: Getty Images.
1. Target isn’t resonating with consumers right now
Target(TGT) is a large big box retailer, offering a range of products under one roof. It competes directly with Walmart(WMT 0.64%). That’s an important comparison point because Target is doing poorly right now and Walmart is doing quite well. To put numbers on that, Target’s same-store sales fell 1.9% in the second quarter of 2025 while Walmart’s same store sales rose 4.6% in its U.S. locations.
The big difference is that Target’s business model is to offer a more premium experience, while Walmart is squarely about its everyday low prices ethos. Consumers worried about the economy and inflation, which The Motley Fool’s research shows can ravage the buying power of the dollar, appear to be voting with their feet. However, if Federal Reserve rate cuts lead to a growth uptick, consumers could trade back up to Target.
Just such a shift has happened before, so expecting it to happen again isn’t a big stretch in a sector driven by consumer sentiment. That said, Target’s shares are down more than 40% from their 52-week high, making them look relatively cheap. And the Dividend King is offering an attractive 5% yield that’s backed by over five decades of annual dividend increases.
2. Lululemon is a luxury basics clothing retailer
The story around Lululemon(LULU -0.75%) is roughly similar to that of Target. Lululemon makes athletic wear basics. However, the cost of these basics is very high, so it is really a luxury retailer. To be fair, there’s a fashion twist here and the company has made past design missteps that can’t be ignored. But overall, it has been on trend more than it has been off trend.
But one thing Lululemon can’t control is the swings in the economy and how customers react to those swings. The company’s second quarter results weren’t bad if you take a top-level view of the income statement, with revenues up 7% and same-store sales up 1%. But that was entirely driven by international growth, with sales up just 1% in the Americas and same store sales off by 4%.
It clearly looks like consumers in the Americas are pulling back on what are really discretionary purchases, despite the basic nature of the items. If rate cuts make consumers more confident in the economy again, that trend could change. With the stock down more than 50% from its 52-week high, there could be some turnaround appeal here for more aggressive investors.
3. Coca-Cola is boring and doing fairly well
Coca-Cola(KO -0.83%), the last stock up on this list, is appropriate for conservative investors. The shares are only down around 10% from their 52-week highs. But that’s enough to have pushed the stock’s price-to-sales and price-to-earnings ratios below their five-year averages. It wouldn’t be fair to suggest that Coca-Cola is trading hands at fire-sale prices, but it does appear fairly priced to a little cheap. The stock doesn’t go on sale very often, so this could be a good opportunity for long-term investors who place a high value on dividends.
On the dividend front, the beverage giant is a Dividend King with over six decades of annual dividend increases behind it. The yield is notably above the market at nearly 3.1%. And it is one of the largest and best-run consumer staples companies on the planet. If you are risk averse, Coca-Cola is a solid option. And economic growth driven by rate cuts could make it that much easier for consumers to justify splurging on what is basically very expensive water.
There’s plenty of benefit to go around from rate cuts
Federal Reserve rate cuts are a bit of a blunt instrument when it comes to impacting the economy. But they can be very effective at freeing up capital for investment. If there are more rate cuts to come, as Wall Street seems to expect, Target, Lululemon, and Coca-Cola could all benefit if the outcome is continued, if not stronger, economic growth. The upside at Target and Lululemon is more material, but Coca-Cola shows that even the most conservative investors can get in on the rate-cut investment opportunity.
Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Lululemon Athletica Inc., Target, and Walmart. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
SCRAPPING the two-child benefit cap may not help with a child’s early development and being ready for school, a report says.
The new study says ending the policy would massively help reduce child poverty but it currently has “no adverse” impact on kids by the end of their reception year.
1
Scrapping the two-child benefit cap may NOT help a kid’s early development, a report has foundCredit: Getty
Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure to end the cap from ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell.
But ending the policy that came into effect in 2017 would cost between £2 billion and £3.5 billion by the end of the decade.
The government has a goal of raising the proportion of children starting school ready to learn from the current 68 per cent to 75 per cent by 2030.
Report author Tom Waters, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “This suggests that it might be hard for the Government to ‘kill two birds with one stone’ – simultaneously reducing child poverty and raising school readiness – through scrapping the two-child limit.”
The government is expected to set out its strategy to tackle child poverty this Autumn.
Cabinet Minister Bridget Phillipson said scrapping the cap is “on the table” while drumming up support for her bid to be Labour’s deputy leader, following Angela Rayner leaving the role.
Angela Rayner says lifting 2-child benefit cap not ‘silver bullet’ for ending poverty after demanding cuts for millions
Trillions of dollars are at stake as wealth flows across generations. Two companies are poised to ride the wave.
A flood of wealth is anticipated to sweep from baby boomers to younger generations over the next couple of decades. Cerulli Associates estimates $106 trillion will pass to younger generations. Of that, a large chunk is destined to be passed on to the companies that manage their finances.
Robinhood (HOOD 1.90%) and Lemonade (LMND 2.67%) are two fintechs laser-focused on providing financial services to Great Wealth Transfer winners. Robinhood offers the next generation of investing, banking, and credit products. Lemonade does the same for insurance.
Here’s a look at each.
Image source: Getty Images.
1. Robinhood
Robinhood is widely seen as the face of fintech by young, tech-savvy investors. It pioneered zero-commission stock trading, a win that continues to pay reputational dividends. It continues to attract interest by beefing up its premium Gold subscription. Perks include 3% IRA match, a credit card with 3% rewards, and $1,000 of interest-free margin trading. The subscription is cheap, at $5 a month as of this writing.
Robinhood has promising user base demographics. In a May 2025 Investor Day presentation, the company discloses the median age for Robinhood customers is 35. Robinhood is popular with millennials and Gen X, the two generations primed to inherit the most over the next 10 years. But what really sets it apart from competitors is how it’s sprinting to meet these users where they’ll be not next year, but a decade from now.
The company has diversified from trading into wealth management and banking, a huge profit driver. The recent unveiling of Banking and Strategies products is evidence of a company executing on an ambitious long-term vision. Both product lines are key to convincing young and maturing customers that Robinhood is a “serious” wealth manager.
The stock is far from undervalued. As of this writing, it trades at a forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of over 50x, a valuation typically attributed to tech stocks — much higher than the 29x S&P 500(^GSPC 0.48%) average. There might be better-valued opportunities among competitors like Block.
Strong fundamentals justify its high multiples. The company is profitable and has been so for over a year. It’s grown total platform assets at a staggering 99% in a single year, and it has over $4 billion on the balance sheet — plenty to invest in growth, or lean upon during tough times.
Robinhood’s young user base, ambitious vision, and strong fundamentals position it perfectly to win the Great Wealth Transfer. Its quickly growing suite of products is proof the company is moving to meet the next generation where it’s at: online, via an award-winning interface that does investing, banking, and wealth management.
2. Lemonade
Lemonade is very well positioned to serve as a major insurer of young and maturing users. It offers insurance via the Lemonade app, an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered interface that can pay out claims in as little as 3 seconds. It typically attracts customers with the promise of cheap rental insurance. As customers mature, they purchase higher-margin insurance from Lemonade, like Car and Pet.
Powerful machine learning models put Lemonade in a league of its own. From Car to Life, these models gobble up data that the company uses to improve predictions. Combined with AI models that manage customers and employees, it can scale premiums from $609 million to $1,083 million while shrinking operating expenses, excluding growth spend.
To scale quickly, Lemonade is leaning into the expansion of its car insurance product. Car insurance is a huge unlock for users who want to stick with a single insurer across all products, snagging discounts. Lemonade knows this. In the Q1 2025 Shareholder letter, the company reveals it sees a 60% boost to conversion rates in states where it offers car insurance.
Lemonade has yet to prove it’s a sustainable business. The company is unprofitable, a red flag in a volatile market that places a premium on stability.
Critics point to the Car product in particular. Car insurance is a loss leader, with an 82% loss ratio, well above the 40% to 60% industry ideal. That needs to improve. An ideal gross loss ratio is typically between 40% to 60%, according to data by Relativity6.
All signs point to Lemonade reaching profitability on a reasonable timeline. Gross loss ratios, a key insurance metric, are trending in the right direction: down. Loss ratios dropped from 79% in Q2 2024 to 69% in Q2 2025. Lemonade expects to reach adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) profitability in 2026, meaning the core business generates more profits than it spends. Investors would love to see it.
Great Wealth Transfer winners to buy and hold
Robinhood and Lemonade may be the real winners of the Great Wealth Transfer. Both are innovative fintech companies with strong and improving fundamentals. I plan on holding both in my portfolio for five years or more.
The weakest nuclear stock, financially, could benefit most from today’s FOMC decision.
Today is the day.
At 2 p.m. ET Wednesday, give or take a few minutes, the Federal Open Market Committee should decide on its next round of interest-rate changes. Presumably it will lower its target interest rate from the current range of 4.25% to 4.5%, to one of 4% to 4.25% — a quarter-point cut. Potentially, it could lower the interest rate by twice as much — 0.5%.
Either way, and assuming a cut of any size at all, this will be the first interest-rate cut by the Federal Reserve in the past nine months, the Fed having last cut rates (also by 0.25%) back on Dec. 18, 2024.
Image source: Getty Images.
Why might the Federal Reserve cut interest rates?
Economists seem pretty certain a rate cut of some size is in the offing. According to the latest inflation update here at The Motley Fool, inflation is still running hotter (2.9%) than the Fed’s target rate of 2% — which you might think would give the Fed some pause. That said, the jobs market is showing sufficient signs of weakness that the Fed is getting concerned — and inclined to roll the dice and risk a bit of extra inflation in hopes of goosing the jobs numbers higher.
In July, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that only 73,000 net new jobs were created, which was below projections. Then came August’s number, which was an objectively horrible 22,000 net new jobs — less than one-third of what economists had predicted. And all of this came after May and June jobs numbers were revised downward by more than a quarter-million.
So the jobs market doesn’t look great, and that means the Fed probably will cut rates today. Now what does this mean for you, the individual investor?
What it means for investors
Believe it or not, bad news for the jobs market and worrisome trends in inflation are both generally interpreted as good news for the stock market — at least when a Fed interest-rate cut is on the table as a possible solution. This is because when the Fed lowers interest rates, it becomes cheaper to borrow, and cheaper to pay interest on debts, which can be a boon for companies not yet earning profits.
Which kinds of companies? Well, maybe I’m biased because I write a lot about nuclear stocks. But if you ask about companies that might benefit from debt getting a bit cheaper, the first to come to my mind are the handful working to develop a new generation of small modular (and micro) nuclear reactors (SMRs). In order from smallest to largest, these include Nano Nuclear Energy(NNE -2.67%), NuScale Power(SMR -4.70%), and Oklo(OKLO -2.77%).
Investors value these three companies very differently. Nano Nuclear is worth only $1.5 billion in market capitalization, versus NuScale with an implied market cap of $11.1 billion, and Oklo tipping the scales at a weighty $14.1 billion.
But in many respects, these three companies look similar. Neither Nano Nuclear nor Oklo has any revenue to speak of. NuScale, which does have some revenue (from technology licenses, not from actual sales of either reactors or nuclear energy), still did only $56 million in business over the last 12 months — enough to value the stock at nearly 200 times sales.
Lacking revenue, it stands to reason that all three of these nuclear energy stocks are also unprofitable. What worries me more than the losses based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), though, is the fact that these companies must continue burning through their cash reserves as they work toward commercializing their technology. Any nuclear stock that runs out of cash before it starts generating positive free cash flow on its own is at risk of needing to sell shares, or take on debt, to raise the cash it needs.
It’s here that lower interest rates from the Fed could lend a helping hand.
Who benefits most from a Fed rate cut?
I expect NuScale Power to benefit more than the others from a rate cut today. With only $420 million in the bank and an annual cash burn rate of $95 million, NuScale’s on course to be the SMR stock that runs out of cash first — potentially before it reaches profitability in 2030 (according to analysts polled by S&P Global Market Intelligence).
In contrast, both Oklo (with $534 million in cash and a burn rate of $53 million per year) and Nano Nuclear (with $210 million and $23 million, respectively) already have enough cash laid up to keep themselves in business for roughly a decade.
Relatively speaking, they’re both in stronger financial positions than NuScale is — but for this very reason, I expect NuScale stock to benefit most from today’s Fed rate decision.
Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends NuScale Power. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Social Security was never intended to cover all of your expenses in retirement. Investing in growth stocks like Nvidia today could help you bridge the gap in your budget down the road.
Many retired Americans rely heavily on Social Security checks for their income, but often, those payments don’t stretch far enough to cover all of their expenses. According to government data, in 2025, the average Social Security benefit is just $1,976 per month.
If that doesn’t sound like much, that’s because it isn’t. A recent study projected that by 2040, 32.6 million U.S. households with retirement-age individuals could have an average cash shortfall of more than $7,000 annually. That gap between retirement income and retirees’ needs is a big reason why many Americans will need to do more to build their own portfolios of investments, rather than trying to rely on Social Security benefits alone.
If you’re on the hunt for stocks that could help you build wealth over the long haul that you can eventually tap in retirement, there are a few compelling reasons to make Nvidia(NVDA 0.43%) one of your picks.
Image source: Getty Images.
Why Nvidia could continue to be a good long-term investment
Nvidia has become a common go-to investment among both tech enthusiasts and average investors over the past few years, as the company is benefiting from a steep increase in spending on artificial intelligence infrastructure. Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs) dominate the artificial intelligence (AI) data center market — it sells an estimated 70% to 95% of all AI chips for infrastructure.
In Q2, the company’s data center revenue jumped 56% year over year to $41 billion, and its non-GAAP earnings per share jumped 54% to $1.05. Eventually, Nvidia’s customers could slow their spending on its hardware — particularly if AI doesn’t deliver the results those companies are hoping for — but that day hasn’t come yet. Nvidia CFO Colette Kress estimates that tech companies will invest up to $4 trillion into AI data centers over the next five years.
And it’s not just AI data centers that could fuel Nvidia’s future growth. The company’s tech is already being used in autonomous vehicles, and advances in the robotics industry could create another expanding new market for it in the coming years. Some estimates forecast that the global autonomous vehicle market will grow to more than $2 trillion over the next five years, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said recently that robotics (including autonomous vehicles) and AI represent a “multitrillion-dollar growth opportunity” for his company.
Though Nvidia stock has already soared by more than 1,100% over the past three years, the combination of its dominance in AI data center processors and its emerging opportunities in robotics and autonomous vehicles suggests it will remain a good long-term investment.
More growth could be ahead for Nvidia, but keep this in mind
While no single stock should make up the majority of your portfolio, investing in Nvidia could give future retirees a way to benefit from the massive transition toward AI systems that’s currently underway. While the chipmaker doesn’t currently pay a meaningful dividend, investors can eventually sell their holdings in retirement to supplement their incomes.
Planning for retirement can be challenging, and as you approach retirement age, it’s generally a good idea to reduce your exposure to stocks and other higher-risk investments. While Nvidia’s share price may continue to climb in the years ahead, it’s important to remember that it’s still a tech company, and tech stocks often go through periods of unusual volatility.
This shouldn’t be too much of a concern if you’ve got a long way to go before retirement, but remember that as you age, you’ll want to shift the balance of the allocations in your well-diversified portfolio toward less risky holdings.
Chris Neiger has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
People approaching retirement should consider whether delaying benefits is worth the monthly increase.
For 90 years, Social Security has provided millions of Americans with a financial lifeline in retirement, helping to keep many Americans above the poverty line. That’s why deciding when you want to claim benefits is such a crucial decision because it permanently affects how much you’ll be receiving in monthly benefits.
As of the end of 2024, the average monthly benefit for someone aged 70 was $2,148.12, or approximately $25,777 annually. For men, the average benefit at that age is $2,389.95, and for women, it’s $1,909.42 (the difference is due to the disparity in lifetime earnings).
Image source: Getty Images.
How claiming at 70 affects your monthly benefit
For anyone born in 1960 or later, your full retirement age (FRA) is 67. This is the age at which you can receive your full monthly benefit amount, known as your primary insurance amount (PIA). Starting at your PIA, the Social Security Administration calculates your monthly benefit based on whether you claim before or after your FRA.
By delaying benefits past your FRA, you increase your monthly benefit by 2/3 of 1% monthly, or 8% annually. You can delay benefits and receive this increase until you reach age 70; after that, your monthly benefit is no longer increased, so that’s realistically the latest age you should claim benefits.
For example, if your PIA was $2,000 at your FRA (assuming it’s 67), delaying benefits until 70 would increase your monthly amount by 24%, taking it to $2,480. This increase, along with the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), is why the average benefit is higher at 70 than at younger ages.
IT was 1984 and newly qualified doctor Daniel Drucker was excited to dive into the world of scientific research.
Fresh out of the University of Toronto Medical School, the 28-year-old was working at a lab in Boston in the US when his supervisor asked him to carry out a routine experiment — which proved to be anything but.
5
Dr Daniel Drucker says he would not rule out using jabs in the future if they proved to be effective against Alzheimer’s diseaseCredit: Supplied
5
Model Lottie Moss was taken to hospital last year after a seizure linked to high doses of weight-loss drug OzempicCredit: instagram
For it led to Dr Drucker’s discovery of a previously unknown hormone, sparking a new era in medicine.
What he modestly calls a “happy accident” then kick-started a series of discoveries that made today’s game-changing weight loss jabs a reality.
The hormone was called glucagon-like peptide 1 — or GLP-1, as the world now knows it.
So far around 50,000 of us have been prescribed jabs on the NHS for weight loss, but it is estimated around 1.5million people here are buying them privately — a figure that is expected to rise sharply.
Dr Drucker, now 69, tells The Sun: “I never felt like I was on the brink of something huge.
“It was just a fantastic stroke of luck to be in the right place at the right time and to be part of an innovation that could improve the health of hundreds of millions of people all over the world.”
The drugs are now being hailed as a possible cure for a range of other conditions too, including dementia and migraine.
But Dr Drucker warns: “We need to be cautious, respect what we don’t know, and not rush into thinking these medicines are right for everyone.
‘Full of hope’
“There could be side-effects we haven’t seen yet, especially in groups we haven’t properly studied.”
I had weight regain and stomach issues coming off fat jabs
Some studies have also raised concerns about gallbladder problems and in rare cases, even suicidal thoughts.
GLP-1 was found to play a key role in regulating the appetite and blood sugar levels, by slowing digestion and signalling a feeling of fullness to the brain.
Fat jabs such as Mounjaro and Wegovy contain synthetic versions of GLP-1, tirzepatide and semaglutide, which mimic the natural hormone with astonishing, fat-busting results.
Originally these drugs — known as GLP-1 agonists — were licensed to treat Type 2 diabetes, due to their ability to stimulate the body’s production of insulin, which cuts high blood glucose levels.
But over the past 15 years, after studies confirmed the potential to tackle obesity, pharmaceutical firms have reapplied to have the drugs approved as weight loss treatments.
And now evidence is emerging almost daily to suggest these drugs could help treat and even prevent other chronic and degenerative diseases.
Hundreds of scientific trials are under way, and Dr Drucker is “full of hope”, adding that he would consider taking the drugs himself, to ward off Alzheimer’s disease.
He says: “I think the next five years is going to be massive. These drugs won’t fix everything, but if they help even half the conditions we are testing them for, we could finally find treatments for conditions once thought untreatable.”
Decades after his discovery, Dr Drucker is now a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, and a senior investigator at the affiliated Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, where GLP-1 research now fills his life.
He says: “Every morning I turn on my phone and check what’s happened overnight — what new discovery has been made, what could this hormone cure or treat.”
Even so, in May UK health chiefs warned that the jabs must not be taken during pregnancy or in the two months before conception, after studies of animals found that semaglutide can cause pregnancy loss and birth defects.
But with human use, no such danger has been confirmed, Dr Drucker says, and dozens of women have conceived while taking them.
5
Dr Drucker’s pioneering work led to fat jabs that have become a medical game-changer
5
The drugs are now being hailed as a possible cure for a range of other conditions too, including dementia and migraineCredit: Getty
Some scientists even believe GLP-1 drugs may boost fertility, and could become a go-to for infertility treatment.
Dr Drucker, listed in Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in 2024, says: “It wouldn’t surprise me if five years from now, once we have more clinical trial evidence, if we start recommending these medicines to help people get pregnant, and have safer pregnancies.”
It is exciting stuff, but Dr Drucker admits he also worries about people using the drugs for the wrong reasons — such as slim, young women in pursuit of unrealistic beauty ideals on social media.
He says: “If I’ve got a 17-year-old who wants to lose another five per cent of her body weight to look like some celebrity, that’s a real concern.
“We haven’t studied 10,000 teenage girls on these drugs over five years. We don’t know how they affect bones, fertility, mental health or development in the long term.”
Last year model Lottie Moss, sister of supermodel Kate, revealed she had ended up in hospital after a seizure linked to high doses of weight loss drug Ozempic.
I think the next five years will be massive. These drugs won’t fix everything, but if they help even half the conditions we are testing for, we could find treatments for conditions thought untreatable
Dr Daniel Drucker
A nurse told her the dose she had been injecting was meant for someone twice her size.
Dr Drucker warned that older adults, people with eating disorders and those with mental health conditions may respond differently to the drugs.
He says: “We’re still learning, and just because a medicine works well in one group doesn’t mean it is safe for everyone.”
Dr Drucker says: “Some people experience nausea and vomiting, which can lead to dehydration, and that in itself can be dangerous.” He also warns that losing weight too quickly can reduce muscle mass and bone density, which is especially risky for older people.
He adds: “This is why it is important people only take these drugs when being monitored by medical professionals, so they can be properly assessed for side-effects and receive the safest, most effective care.”
5
Dr Drucker with his fellow medic wife Dr Cheryl Rosen, a dermatologistCredit: Getty
So far at least 85 people in the UK have died after taking weight loss jabs, according to reports sent to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency watchdog.
While none of the deaths has been definitively linked to the drugs, health bodies noted a “suspicion” that they may have played a role.
Dr Drucker says: “Reports like these can raise flags, but without proper comparison groups they don’t tell the full story.
‘Drugs aren’t candy’
“In fact, large trials show GLP-1 drugs actually reduce death rates in people with Type 2 diabetes and those with obesity and heart disease.
“So far, the evidence looks solid and reassuring.”
With millions of patients treated over the years, GLP-1s have a well-established safety record for diabetes and obesity.
But Dr Drucker warns that for newer uses, such as Alzheimer’s, fatty liver disease or sleep apnoea, we need more data.
He says: “I don’t think there are any hidden, terrifying side-effects waiting to be uncovered.
“But that doesn’t mean people should take them lightly. We don’t yet have 20 years of experience treating some of these conditions.
“We need to approach each new indication with appropriate caution, to really understand the benefits versus the potential risks.
“These drugs aren’t candy, they won’t fix everything — and like all medicines they have side-effects.
“I don’t think we should abandon our focus on safety. We need to move carefully and thoughtfully as this field evolves.”
I’m not struggling with Type 2 diabetes or obesity, but I do have a family history of Alzheimer’s. I’m watching the trials closely and, depending on the results, I wouldn’t rule out taking them in the future
Dr Daniel Drucker
He continues: “I’m not struggling with Type 2 diabetes or obesity, but I do have a family history of Alzheimer’s. I’m watching the trials closely and, depending on the results, I wouldn’t rule out taking them in the future.
“I have friends from college who are already showing early signs of cognitive decline, and there’s hope that in some cases, semaglutide might help to slow it.”
Several studies over the years support that theory.
A recent study by a US university found that the jabs could prevent Alzheimer’s-related changes in people with Type 2 diabetes.
Separate research from Taiwan found that people on GLP-1 agonist drugs appeared to have a 37 per cent lower risk of dementia.
Dr Drucker now regularly receives messages from people around the world whose lives have been changed by the drugs his lab helped to create.
He says: “I get tons of stories. People send me emails and photos, not just showing their weight loss, but how their health has changed in other ways too.”
Some say the jabs have helped their chronic pain, cleared brain fog or improved long-standing health conditions such as ulcerative colitis or arthritis.
Dr Drucker adds: “It’s incredibly heartwarming and I never get tired of hearing these stories.”
But for him there is even deeper meaning attached to his discovery.
His 97-year-old mother Cila, originally from Poland, survived the Holocaust, spending months as a child hiding in the family’s attic before they were captured and held in a ghetto, where her mother and sister were later shot dead.
At the end of the war in 1945 she became a refugee in Palestine, then in 1953 she emigrated to Canada, first settling in Montreal then making Toronto her home in the 1990s.
Dr Drucker says his work has helped to ease Cila’s survivor’s guilt which had consumed her for decades.
He says: “She looks at my work and she’s so proud of how many people it could potentially help.”
MARTIN DUBRAVKA fell foul of the new rules over goalkeepers holding onto the ball too long.
The Burnley stopper was punished for taking an age to release it out of his hands inside four minutes against Spurs.
1
Martin Dubravka was the first goalkeeper to fall foul of the new Premier League rules
New regulations cite that goalies cannot hold the ball for any longer than eight seconds.
Slovakian Dubravka, making his Clarets debut following his switch from Newcastle, was deemed to have taken longer than that and ref Michael Oliver intervened.
The whistler awarded a corner, as is the new rule, which Burnley managed to clear.
Spurs took the lead six minutes later, as Richarlison converted a cross from new signing Mohammed Kudus.
MORE TO FOLLOW…
THIS IS A DEVELOPING STORY..
The Sun is your go to destination for the best football, boxing and MMA news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/TheSunFootball and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSunFootball.
State Pension (including Graduated Retirement Benefit)
Severe Disablement Allowance (transitionally protected)
Unemployability Supplement or Allowance (paid under Industrial Injuries or War Pensions schemes)
War Disablement Pension at State Pension age
War Widow’s Pension
Widowed Mother’s Allowance
Widowed Parent’s Allowance
Widow’s Pension
If you’re part of a married couple, in a civil partnership or live together, you’ll both get the cash bonus – as long as you both are eligible.
If you or your partner do not get one of the above qualifying benefits, then they could still get the bonus if they are over the state pension age by the end of the qualifying week.
Winter Fuel payment
The Winter Fuel Payment is made every year to help cover the cost of energy over the colder months.
It has been changed in recent months so that fewer can claim.
However, the cash boost, worth up to £300, is still valuable for those who quality – particularly those on Pension Credit.
The cash is usually paid in November and December, with some made up until the end of January the following year.
If you haven’t got your payment by then, you need to call the office that pays your benefits.
Households eligible for the payment are usually told via a letter sent in October or November each year.
If you think you meet the criteria, but don’t automatically get the winter fuel payment, you will have to apply on the government’s website.
The Child Winter Heating Assistance
If you’re based in Scotland, you could receive a child winter heating assistance payment of £255.80.
You get child winter heating payment for a child or young person under 19 who lives in Scotland and who is entitled to:
the highest rate of the care component of child disability payment (CDP) or disability living allowance (DLA), or
the enhanced rate of the daily living component of adult disability payment (ADP) or personal independence payment (PIP).
They must be entitled to the relevant disability benefit during the ‘qualifying week’, which is the week beginning on the third Monday in September (w/c Septmber 15 in 2025).
You do not have to make a claim for the payment, but it should be paid by Social Security Scotland, usually in November.
If you think you’re entitled but have not received payment by the end of December, you should contact Social Security Scotland on 0800 182 2222.
Warm Home Discount
The Warm Home Discount is an automatic £150 discount off energy bills.
As the money is a discount, there is no money paid to you, but you’ll get the payment automatically if your electricity supplier is part of the scheme and you qualify.
You’ll have to be in receipt of one of the following benefits to qualify for one of the payments:
If you don’t claim any of the above benefits, you won’t be eligible for the payment.
Cold Weather payment
Cold weather payments are dished out when temperatures are recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees or below, on average, for seven consecutive days between November 1 and March 31.
Eligible Brits are then given extra money to help heat their homes.
You get £25 for each seven-day period where the weather is below zero Celsius on average during this time frame.
You can check if your area has had a cold weather payment by popping your postcode into the government’s tool on its website.
You’ll need to be on certain benefits to qualify, which are:
Student maintenance loans are paid to university students to help cover living costs such as rent.
They are usually paid at the start of each new term, so you typically receive three payments a year.
Maintenance Loans are paid straight into your student bank account in three (almost) equal instalments throughout the year.
The amount you will receive depends on where in the UK you’re from, whether you’ll be living at home or not, your household income and how long you’re studying for.
The average Maintenance Loan is approximately £6,116 a year.
Are you missing out on benefits?
YOU can use a benefits calculator to help check that you are not missing out on money you are entitled to
Entitledto’s free calculator determines whether you qualify for various benefits, tax credit and Universal Credit.
MoneySavingExpert.com and charity StepChange both have benefits tools powered by Entitledto’s data.
You can use Policy in Practice’s calculator to determine which benefits you could receive and how much cash you’ll have left over each month after paying for housing costs.
Your exact entitlement will only be clear when you make a claim, but calculators can indicate what you might be eligible for.
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Monday over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen federally funded “public benefit” programs, arguing the restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.
President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country.
Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather conditions; soup kitchens, community food banks and other food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration’s “abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent” amounted to a “cruel” and costly attack on some of the nation’s most vulnerable residents.
“This latest salvo in the President’s inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,” Bonta said. “We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.”
The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Bonta’s office said “requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.”
It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be “devastating — and immediate.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
The states’ claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services.
About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”
The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”
Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non-citizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining “the principles and limitations” of that law.
Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.
In response to Trump’s order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding “noncitizens” from more programs, including previously exempted ones.
“For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Today’s action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.”
“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
“By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we’re protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration’s commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,” said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.
The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states’ lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.
Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of the Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.
Health Department says immigrants will lose access to 13 more federal programmes, including an educational project for low-income children.
United States officials are cutting down further on undocumented immigrants’ access to healthcare programmes and benefits as part of President Donald Trump’s widening immigration crackdown.
On Thursday, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it was broadening its interpretation of a 1996 law that prohibits most immigrants from receiving federal public benefits.
The decision means that undocumented immigrants will no longer be eligible for an additional 13 programmes.
They include Head Start, a pre-school educational programme, and projects that address family planning, mental health, substance abuse and efforts to reduce homelessness.
“For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivise illegal immigration,” HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr said on Thursday.
“Today’s action changes that – it restores integrity to federal social programmes, enforces the rule of law and protects vital resources for the American people.”
Critics fear the added restrictions will further marginalise a vulnerable group of immigrants who often have scarce resources, exacerbating public health crises in the US.
The new restrictions relate to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.
That law — passed under Democratic President Bill Clinton — barred those living in the country without valid immigration documents and those on temporary visas, like students or foreign workers, from receiving major benefits from the federal government.
However, the scope of the restrictions was not spelled out, as the law did not define what counted as “federal public benefits”.
To make things clearer, the HHS issued a legal interpretation in 1998, which prevented access to 31 programmes. Medicaid — an insurance programme for low-income households — and Social Security were among them, as was the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
In a statement released on Thursday, the HHS claimed “the 1998 policy improperly narrowed the scope of PRWORA”, allowing undocumented immigrants to access programmes which “Congress intended only for the American people”.
With Thursday’s additions, the total number of restricted programmes rises to 44.
The HHS’s new policy, which is subject to a 30-day public comment period, will take effect when it is published in the Federal Register.
Since starting his second presidential term in January, Donald Trump has made it a priority to tackle undocumented immigration.
Critics have accused his administration of violating human rights and the US Constitution, as well as exceeding his presidential authority.
As part of Trump’s campaign of mass deportation, for example, the president invoked a controversial wartime legislation to deport hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador in March. Opponents argue that Trump falsely declared undocumented immigration to be an “invasion” in order to justify denying the immigrants their right to due process.
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has resigned as a whip over the government’s plans to cut disability benefits.
In a letter to the prime minister, Foxcroft said she understood the need to address “the ever-increasing welfare bill” but said cuts to personal independence payments and universal credit should “not be part of the solution”.
She said she had “wrestled with whether I should resign or remain in the government and fight for changes from within. Sadly it now seems that we are not going to get the changes I desperately wanted to see.”
Responding to her letter, a government spokesman said it was fixing a “broken welfare system” that was failing the sick and vulnerable.
“Our principled reforms will ensure those who can work should, that those who want to work are properly supported, and that those with the most severe disabilities and health conditions are protected.”
Earlier this week, the government published its bill, which tightens the criteria people have to meet in order to get personal independence payments (Pips) and cuts the sickness-related element of universal credit.
More than 100 Labour MPs have expressed concern about the bill and the government could face a large rebellion from its own backbenchers when it comes to a vote in a fortnight’s time.
On Wednesday, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall told the BBC her “door was always open” to colleagues worried about the bill but that ministers were “firm in our convictions”.
Under the current system too many people were being “written off” instead of being given support to find work, she said.
She also argued that claimant levels are rising to unsustainable levels, and figures released this Tuesday found the number of people on Pips had reached a record high of 3.7m.
On Wednesday, impact assessments produced by the government estimated that 370,000 existing Pips claimants in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would lose out under the proposed changes, saving £1.7bn by 2029/30.
A further £1.89bn could be saved from a predicted 430,000 drop in the number of potential future claimants.
Another impact assessment, published in March suggested 250,000 people could be pushed into poverty by the cuts – but ministers said the figure didn’t take account of the £1bn it would spend to help the long-term sick and disabled find work.
As a government whip, Foxcroft would have been expected to persuade reluctant Labour MPs to back the proposed legislation.
The Lewisham North MP said she was quitting because she knew she would “not be able to do the job that is required of me and whip – or indeed vote – for reforms which include cuts to disabled people’s finances”.
She added that she was “incredibly proud to have served as part of the first Labour government in 14 years and hope that ministers will revisit these reforms so that I can continue to support the government in delivering for the people of this country”.
Foxcroft was first elected to her south London constituency in May 2015.
WASHINGTON — The go-broke dates for Medicare and Social Security trust funds have moved up as rising health care costs and new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, according to an annual report released Wednesday.
The go-broke date — or the date at which the programs will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — was pushed up to 2033 for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, according to the new report from the programs’ trustees. Last year’s report put the go-broke date at 2036.
Meanwhile, Social Security’s trust funds — which cover old age and disability recipients — will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits.
The trustees say the latest findings show the urgency of needed changes to the programs, which have faced dire financial projections for decades. But making changes to the programs has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare’s troubling math to the next generation.
President Trump and other Republicans have vowed not to make any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, even as they seek to shrink the federal government’s expenditures.
Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano, sworn into his role in May, said in a statement that “the financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration.”
“Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that needs to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers,” the trustees state in the report.
The trustees are made up of six people — the Treasury Secretary serves as managing trustee, alongside the secretaries of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the commissioner of Social Security. Two other presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed trustees serve as public representatives, however those roles have been vacant since July 2015.
About 68 million people are enrolled in Medicare, the federal government’s health insurance that covers those 65 and older, as well as people with severe disabilities or illnesses.
Wednesday’s report shows a worsening situation for the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund compared to last year. But the forecasted go-broke date of 2033 is still later than the dates of 2031, 2028 and 2026 predicted just a few years ago.
Once the fund’s reserves become depleted, Medicare would be able to cover only 89% of costs for patients’ hospital visits, hospice care and nursing home stays or home health care that follow hospital visits.
The report said expenses last year for Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund came in higher than expected.
Income exceeded expenditures by nearly $29 billion last year for the hospital insurance trust fund, the report stated. Trustees expect that surplus to continue through 2027. Deficits then will follow until the fund becomes depleted in 2033.
The report states that the Social Security Social Security Fairness Act, enacted in January, which repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions of the Social Security Act and increased Social Security benefit levels for some workers, had an impact on the depletion date of SSA’s trust funds.
Romina Boccia, a director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at the libertarian CATO Institute called the repeal of the provisions “a political giveaway masquerading as reform. Instead of tackling Social Security’s structural imbalances, Congress chose to increase benefits for a vocal minority—accelerating trust fund insolvency.”
“It’s a clear sign that populist pressure now outweighs fiscal responsibility and economic sanity on both sides of the aisle,” She said.
Pair that with a Republican reconciliation bill that increases tax giveaways while refusing to rein in even the most dubious Medicaid expansions, and the message is unmistakable: Washington is still in giveaway mode.
AARP CEO Myechia Minter-Jordan said “Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into throughout their working lives.” “More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America’s population ages, the stability of this vital program only becomes more important.”
Social Security benefits were last reformed roughly 40 years ago, when the federal government raised the eligibility age for the program from 65 to 67. The eligibility age has never changed for Medicare, with people eligible for the medical coverage when they turn 65.
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the popular public benefit program said in a statement that “there are two options for action: Bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn’t support increasing Social Security’s revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts.”
Congressional Budget Office reporting has stated that the biggest drivers of debt rising in relation to GDP are increasing interest costs and spending for Medicare and Social Security. An aging population drives those numbers.
Several legislative proposals have been put forward to address Social Security’s impending insolvency.
Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Amanda Seitz and Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
After a weekend of raucous “No Kings” protests across the country — especially throughout Los Angeles — immigrant activists in music have a new benefit show planned for tonight in Echo Park.
Tom Morello, the guitarist of Rage Against the Machine and a longtime leftist and human rights advocate, will headline a sold-out show called “Defend L.A.” set at the Echoplex on Monday in support of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).
The show will feature like-minded peers including B-Real of Cypress Hill, Pussy Riot, K.Flay and visual artist Shepard Fairey. The Neighborhood Kids, a rising young San Diego hip-hop group whose songs document the on-the-ground reality of communities under threat from immigration raids, will play its most prominent L.A. set to date there. Comedian George Lopez will host.
Morello joined the recent anti-ICE marches in Los Angeles, where protest signs and slogans often echoed his band’s radical-resistance lyrics and imagery. The singer-songwriter wore a guitar emblazoned with anti-ICE messaging onstage at the Boston Calling festival last month.
While downtown L.A., a site of many heated protests, had been placed under a nighttime curfew, Saturday’s “No Kings” marches were broadly peaceful, with only 38 arrests in Los Angeles, mostly for curfew violations. After the marches, the Trump administration recently announced efforts to expand immigration raids in sanctuary cities like Los Angeles.
June 12 (UPI) — The House-passed budget reconciliation bill promoted by the Trump administration would benefit higher earners at the expense of lower-income Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.
The CBO’s findings said between 2026 and 2034, after-tax federal benefits “would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution,” the report said.
“If you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said during an interview on Fox News last week.
But the CBO report indicates that the top 10% of earners would receive the highest tax cuts.
The CBO analysis shows that households earning up to $107,000 yearly will see an average tax cut of $1,200 annually through 2034. People making up to $138,000 annually will see a $1,750 tax cut; those earning up to $178,000 will see a $2,400 yearly benefit; those bringing in $242,000 will see a $3,650 benefit; and households earning up to $682,000 a year can expect an annual $13,500 tax benefit.
A recent analysis by the Joint Taxation Committee reflected the results of the CBO report and also suggested that lower income Americans would benefit less from the legislation than higher earners.
The budget bill, which has seen staunch opposition from Democrats, faith leaders and social service advocates, faces a tough road in the Senate, where even some members of the GOP have expressed concern about the depth of the cuts, especially to Medicaid services and SNAP benefits, which would fall most squarely on the most vulnerable Americans.
Academics and scientists have also been critical of proposed reductions in research funding in the budget bill while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.
AS KING Canute found over a thousand years ago, it is quite difficult to stand on a beach and order the tide to recede.
Today, it is equally difficult to make the argument that giving families cash is not always the best way of lifting them out of poverty.
2
David Blunkett grew up on just bread and dropping at home – but he is warning that lifting the 2 child benefit cap is not the best way to tackle povertyCredit: Alamy
This is especially true when one particular measure becomes the symbol of whether or not you’re on the right side of the debate about child poverty.
But as someone who now can afford the comforts of life, I constantly remind myself of my childhood.
The grinding poverty that I experienced when my father was killed in a work accident when I was 12 – leaving my mother, who had serious health problems, to fight a long battle for minimal compensation.
Having only bread and dripping in the house was, by anyone’s standards, a hallmark of absolute poverty.
Why on earth would I question, therefore, the morality of reversing a Tory policy introduced eight years ago?
This restricts the additional supplement to universal credit – worth over £3,000 a child per year – to just two children.
I should know, my friends tell me, that the easiest and quickest way of overcoming the growth in child poverty is to restore the £3.5 billion pounds it would cost to give this additional money for all the children in every family entitled to the credit.
It is true that the policy, introduced in 2017, failed its first test.
Women did not stop having more than two children even when they were strapped for cash. It is still unclear why.
After all, many people have to make a calculation as to how many children they can afford.
2
Keir Starmer is under massive pressure form Labour backbench MPs to lift the 2 child benefit cap and go on a new welfare spending spreeCredit: AP
But one thing must be certain: namely, that if you give parents a relatively substantial additional amount of money for every child they have whilst entitled to benefits, they are likely to have more children.
Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, said as much last week. His argument for restoring the benefit to the third and subsequent children was precisely that we needed to persuade low- income families to have more children.
Surely having children that you cannot afford to feed is the legacy of a bygone era?
All those earning below £60,000 are entitled to the basic child benefit, so the argument is about just over £60 a week extra per child.
One difficulty in having a sensible debate about what really works in overcoming intergenerational poverty is the lack of reliable statistics.
Some people have claimed, over recent days, that over 50 per cent of children in Manchester and Birmingham live in poverty.
I fear that such claims should be treated with scepticism.
Those struggling to make ends meet – sometimes having not just one but two jobs – who pay their taxes and national insurance and plan their lives around what can be afforded, have the right to question where their hard-earned wages go.
The simple and obvious truth is that child poverty springs from the lack of income of the adults who care for them.
Transforming their lives impacts directly on the children in their family.
There is a limit to how much money taxpayers are willing to hand over to pay for another family’s children.
Helping them to help themselves is a different matter.
So, what would I do?
Firstly, I would ensure that families with a disabled youngster automatically have the entitlement restored.
This would self-evidently apply also to multiple births.
In both cases, life is not only more difficult, it is also harder to get and keep a job.
I would come down like a ton of bricks on absent parents.
My mum was a single parent because she was widowed; many others are single in the sense that the other partner has walked away.
The Child Maintenance Service should step up efforts to identify and pursue absent parents who do not pay their fair share towards their child.
We, the community, have a clear duty to support and assist those in need.
To help those where a helping hand will restore them to independence and self-reliance.
But there is an obligation on individuals as well as the State, and mutual help starts with individuals taking some responsibility for themselves.
Finally, if (and this is where I am in full agreement with colleagues campaigning to dramatically reduce child poverty) we make substantial sums of money available to overcome hardship, then a comprehensive approach to supporting the families must surely be the best way to achieve this.
As ever in politics there is a trade off. What you spend on handing over cash is not available to invest in public services: that is the reality.
Help from the moment a child is born, not just with childcare but with nurturing and child development.
Dedicated backing to gain skills and employment and to taper the withdrawal of help so that it genuinely becomes worthwhile having and keeping a job.
A contract between the taxpayer and the individual or household. Government is about difficult choices, that is why Keir Starmer and his colleagues are agonising over what to do next.
Angela Rayner says lifting 2-child benefit cap not ‘silver bullet’ for ending poverty after demanding cuts for millions
