Latest news with #Galloway
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Scott Galloway reveals real Social Security problem
Republican lawmakers are preparing to advance President Trump's sweeping Big Beautiful Bill in the coming days, with the Senate expected to hold its first procedural vote as early as June 28. According to the latest report from the Congressional Budget Office, which considers variables such as interest rates, inflation, and projected economic performance, the estimated cost is $2.8 trillion. New York University professor and popular podcaster Scott Galloway says Democrats have criticized the bill but have failed to offer alternatives, which he believes is a missed opportunity. That being the case, Galloway has a few thoughts of his own on problems with the bill and some suggested solutions, including how to handle increasingly pressing problems with Social Security. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Despite earning $16 million annually, Galloway believes he shouldn't receive Social Security benefits in retirement. He argues that means-testing - evaluating financial need - should be used to determine eligibility. He points out that although he makes millions, he still pays only about $9,000 a year into Social Security, the same amount as someone earning $160,000 due to the payroll tax cap. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on buying vs. leasing a car In Galloway's view, many Social Security recipients end up collecting two to three times what they contributed over their lifetimes. He suggests that high earners such as himself, while technically eligible, don't necessarily need or deserve Social Security benefits simply because they paid into the system. Galloway explains further views on Social Security and what the Big Beautiful Bill might have included given different leadership in Congress. Galloway lays out some key facts that he believes should be driving the conversation about what should be done to fix Social Security. "Since 1957 the share of Americans who are 65 and older has nearly doubled from 9% to 17%," Galloway wrote in his "No Mercy / No Malice" newsletter on June 27. "At $1.5 trillion dollars, Social Security is the largest expenditure in the federal budget. U.S. seniors are the wealthiest cohort in history and the recipients of the largest redistribution in history, he added." More on personal finance: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Galloway points out that Social Security, which currently provides benefits to around 69 million Americans, is facing a looming funding shortfall expected to hit within the next eight years. He attributes this financial strain to a combination of factors: The growing number of Americans entering retirement (a positive sign of longevity and economic success)Longer life expectancies that mean people collect benefits for more years (also positive from a human perspective)A troubling dip in workforce participation, which results in fewer workers paying into the system to support current retirees "If/when Social Security becomes insolvent, America's grandparents will likely put their retirement on their grandkids' credit cards," Galloway wrote. "The fix is straightforward, but politically fraught: Means-test benefits and raise the retirement age (exempting people in physically demanding professions)," he added. According to a CBO analysis, Galloway explained, an increase in full retirement age by two months per birth year until it reaches age 70 for Americans born in 1978 or later would decrease total federal outlays by $122 billion through 2032. Related: Dave Ramsey has blunt words on spending money to keep a dog alive Galloway explains his belief that phasing out benefits for those with more than $150,000 of non-Social Security income would save an estimated $600 billion to $700 billion over the course of a decade. "We now spend $5 on seniors for every $1 on children," Galloway wrote. "Enough already. Seniors who need Social Security should get it, but it shouldn't mean an upgrade from Carnival to Crystal Cruises for NaNa and PopPop." "At current rates, within a decade, we'll spend half our federal budget on programs for seniors," Galloway added. Galloway also explains his views on an issue he believes to be a tax on the youth. He argues that tax policies such as reduced rates on long-term capital gains and mortgage interest deductions disproportionately benefit older and wealthier Americans - essentially moving resources from younger, lower-income individuals to those already financially secure. He highlights the fact that asset ownership - stocks and real estate - is largely concentrated among the wealthy and older population, while younger and poorer Americans are more likely to rent and earn most of their income from wages. In his view, this creates an unfair dynamic where those with the least are indirectly subsidizing the wealth-building of those with the most. Galloway advocates eliminating both the preferential tax treatment for capital gains and the mortgage interest deduction, proposing that investment windfalls be taxed at the same rate as regular income. According to his estimates, doing so could generate an additional $117 billion in annual government revenue. Related: Tony Robbins sends strong message to Americans on 401(k)s The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Solar farm approved beside Bronze Age rock art near Kirkcudbright
Planning permission has been granted for construction of a large solar farm located near "nationally significant" Bronze Age rock and Galloway Council's planning committee approved the 43-hectare (106 acre) project at Little Drum Solar proposed development will be constructed just over one mile (1.8km) south east of Kirkcudbright - but will not be visible from the town due to rolling nearest solar panel will be located 250m (820 ft) from the rock art, according to a report by planning officers. There are multiple "non-designated archaeological areas" and features present on or near the includes an inaccessible monument indicating the location of the solar array will provide approximtely 36MW of electricity and include a 12MW battery storage facility. A planning report by council officers said the monument was not currently publicised or the subject of any formal access as part of the solar farm's approval, subject to conditions, a path will be constructed to the monument for the first developer is required to complete the path within three months of the farm becoming operational. 'National significance' The report by planning officers recognised the monument as "one of the finest of its type in Scotland and very important in terms of the period in history it represents".It said the area was "the second densest concentration of (bronze age) rock art in Scotland (after Kilmartin Glen in Argyll) and therefore of national significance".Despite this Historic Environment Scotland gave no objection to the project - after an initial holding preservation body said given the 250m distance from the monument and the solar panel height and position, the project did not raise "historic environment issues of national significance."However, the construction of the farm will not be able to start until an investigation has taken place and been signed off by the there was no reason to object on "heritage grounds" the council archaeologist said ground examinations should take place to explore potentially undiscovered archaeological features of the area. Construction of the solar farm and battery plant is expected to last nine months; the developer is required to begin construction within three part of the application, the solar farm will be operational and provide power for a 40-year lifespan once developers also plan to include "landscaping and biodiversity enhancement measures" around the solar farm - it will clear the area of invasive species in favour of native trees, grassland, flower meadow and hedgerows.
BBC News
3 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
Consultation on scrapped national park in Galloway cost £160,000
A government body spent more than £160,000 on a consultation process which ultimately ended in plans for a new national park in Galloway being sum spent by NatureScot was revealed through a freedom of information (FOI) request by the BBC - and is only a fraction of the overall spend on the park said the total spent on the consultation had not been finalised, and final invoices would see the total rise "very slightly".The consultation was held between November and February and its findings were used to help deliver a final decision on whether or not a new national park should be created. The Scottish government said it was "absolutely correct" to support the nomination process. Plans for a new national park - to join the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs - were part of a power-sharing deal between the SNP and the Scottish that agreement collapsed last year, the process Scottish government revealed in May last year that it had spent more than £300,000 in the earlier stages of the search for a national spent a further £28,000 after Galloway was announced as the preferred potential location for a new national park in July it stressed that civil servants worked "flexibly" across a range of matters making it impossible to specify exact costs in terms of their time. The final stage of the process was the extended consultation - both in person and online - across 14 weeks which was carried out by is a full breakdown of how much this cost:Licence for online engagement platform - £23,220Leaflets (printing and posting) - £20,438Gaelic translation - £215.55Event and other materials - £908.39Consultation events (hall bookings etc) - £5,695.96Facilitation consultants - £62,244.92Analysis consultants - £21,808.80Independent review of consultation - £9,900Board costs and subsistence - £7,982.35Staff costs and subsistence - £11,082.58Total spend (at 20 June 2025) - £163,496.55NatureScot said there were still some outstanding costs which would see the figure rise said it intended to put the final cost on its website by early July. The consultation ultimately led to a recommendation not to take forward the plan for a new national park, which proved a contentious in the concluded - in its role as reporter - that from the views expressed the proposal had "not garnered sufficient support locally to proceed".Instead, it recommended the strengthening of the likes of the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere, Galloway Forest Park and national scenic described the consultation as the "largest and most challenging" it had ever Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon said the Scottish government had weighed up the arguments for and against and agreed not to welcomed the decision, saying the area did not need another "layer of bureaucracy".Campaigners in favour, however, said it was a "huge missed opportunity" and a "big loss" for the region. 'Absolutely correct' The Scottish government said the Galloway nomination had met all the selection criteria to be confirmed as the proposed location for the country's third national said the designation process required a "thorough consultation process" which had been independently reviewed by the Scottish Community Development Centre which found it achieved "very impressive levels of public involvement".A spokesperson said: "The consultation collected more than 5,000 surveys and more than 1,000 people attended events to share their opinion."Based on this engagement and the reporter's recommendations we took the decision not to designate Galloway and Ayrshire as a national park."But it was absolutely correct to support the nomination process, thoroughly consider the application and meet the statutory consultation requirements that such a process demands."
Spectator
3 days ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Nigel Farage and George Galloway share a common problem
A more gracious person would refrain from saying, 'I told you so', but I'm not a gracious person. So, as George Galloway announces his backing for another Scottish independence referendum, allow me to say – nay, crow – I told you so. Galloway, leader of the Workers party, says he and his party 'support the right of the Scots to self-determination' and that 'the time for another referendum is close'. He adds: 'Speaking personally, I can no longer support the British state as presently constituted.' If you're familiar with politics north of the border, you might be wondering if this is the same George Galloway who travelled Scotland in 2014 on his Just Say Naw tour, urging an anti-independence vote in that year's referendum. It is indeed the man who said: 'It sickens me that the country of my birth is threatened by such obsolescent dogma. Flags and borders do not matter a jot.' Galloway hasn't stopped being a Unionist; he never was one It is also the man who was the face (though not the leader) of All for Unity, which rocked up on the scene ahead of the 2021 Holyrood elections and declared itself the anti-independence alliance that would unite the pro-Union parties. This was news to the pro-Union parties and they responded with the political equivalent of 'new fone, who dis?' All for Unity more than earned the disregard it received. It was essentially a Twitter account doing a bad impersonation of a political party, but what it lacked in electoral strategy it made up for in digital noisemaking. Its social media outriders took a particular dislike to me, which is shocking because I'm lovely. All I'd done was repeatedly point out in The Spectator that they were a hopeless shower of political halfwits. Some people can be very sensitive. I didn't just argue that All for Unity risked splitting the anti-independence vote, I pointed out that it wasn't all that anti-independence. For one, its tactical voting guide endorsed a Labour MSP who had called on Boris Johnson to hand powers over referendums to Holyrood. For another, its lead candidate on the South of Scotland list was George Galloway. Just a few years earlier, he had said it would be a 'democratic monstrosity' if Westminster refused Holyrood another referendum. A few years before that, he had explained why he wasn't joining the official No campaign in the Scottish referendum: 'because it's a Unionist campaign, because it flies the Union Jack. I hate the Union Jack.' Galloway hasn't stopped being a Unionist; he never was one. Galloway has gone from opposing independence in 2014, to asserting Scotland's right to indyref2 in 2017, to campaigning against indyref2 in 2021, to reverting to support for indyref2 in 2025. He's pivoted more times than Mikhail Baryshnikov. And here's where I get to gloat. Total vindication: unlocked. This is one of the paradoxes of populism. Voters will often say, 'At least you know where you stand with him', when the him in question routinely adopts stances and ditches them again without any intervening search of the soul. 'Every politician does that,' you might protest. 'My point exactly,' I would reply. Populists claim politicians are all the same, then set about proving it. This unreliability is a hallmark not only of leftist populism but of its right-wing counterpart. Reform is an obvious example. Is Nigel Farage's party left or right, authoritarian or libertarian, interventionist or market-driven? Is it pro- or anti-economic migration, for or against multiculturalism, all-in or sceptical on devolution? The answer is that it holds all of these positions, switching out one for another as expediency (or the leader's whims) demands. Populism is very useful if you aim to disrupt the status quo but its lack of ideological or intellectual moorings leaves it vulnerable to mainstream capture. When voters become anxious about political turmoil, they can turn to the reassuring and the familiar, and populists have no option but to follow them. If disruption is all you aim for, populism is all you require, but if you want to replace the established order with a new one, you also need a philosophy that is held sincerely, fiercely and with constancy. Reform has no such philosophy and is too fragile a coalition of conflicting interests and incoherent instincts to acquire one between now and the next election. As such, the party can only be reactive, loudly opposing everything Labour does and reminding the Tories of everything they failed to do. Farage need only point to the parlous state of Britain to dramatise the ill effects of Labour and Tory governance. That might be enough to win a general election but it is not a strategy for implementing the kind of transformation (political, cultural, institutional) that national revival demands. Reform gives voters an opportunity to chuck a spanner in the gears but offers no prospect of new machinery. Nigel Farage, like George Galloway, is a populist and populism is all you'll ever get from him. Trust me: I told you so before.
The National
3 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Using an election as plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly
Most of us, I bet. But fun as it is to see those who only a few short years ago were proclaiming themselves to be 'All4Unity' – and now failing to find much unity among themselves – Galloway endorsing the right of voters in Scotland to choose to be independent is no longer the political showstopper that it could have been a couple of decades ago. Far more predictable was Labour minister Douglas Alexander popping up on BBC Scotland at the weekend and refusing – despite being asked three times – to say how Scotland can voluntarily leave the Union should they wish. READ MORE: Palestine Action activist rejects Home Secretary's Glasgow protest claim It's the question which is guaranteed to leave any Unionist spokesperson spinning towards the ground belching puffs of acrid smoke in their wake, because there's really no good answer they can give. Which of course is all the more reason to keep asking it. The fact is that most Scots, pro-independence or not, accept without question our right to self-determination. Implying or even stating that no such right exists, or dodging the question as Alexander tried to do, only serves to get right up people's noses. While it's not a strategy for independence, it's nevertheless a useful way to put some people on the spot and get the people of Scotland in general talking about the rights and wrongs of the matter. And let's face it, the more people who accept our right to choose independence and who start to consider that the question deserves to be put again, the more likely it is to happen. Short of a 'black swan' event which turns people so decisively against the Union that any vote becomes redundant, independence will probably only happen through a standalone referendum to begin a legal process of becoming independent. And even in the unlikely event of that black swan flying overhead, you'd still likely want a referendum to ratify and legitimise the outcome. So, having said that, let's recognise that using an election as a plebiscite referendum is just not going to fly. Not now. Probably not ever. I'm always puzzled how so many who argue that we absolutely must take this route can argue with 100% certainty that any UK government will say no to another referendum on independence, yet can still believe the same UK government would just roll over and say yes to actual independence in the face of a positive election result. The truth is this – in the unlikely event of being able to win 50% of the vote in a multi-party election, the best anyone in the UK Government will ever do is congratulate us on our result. It will only have effect in their eyes if we fall short, when in a twist on that classic Edinburgh expression, it will be a case of 'you'll have had your referendum'. And independence then really will be off the agenda for another generation. (Image: Supplied) What should matter more to independence supporters than what Westminster thinks is what the Scottish people think. And by that, I mean what people in Scotland really think, rather than what we might wish they thought instead. If anyone spends any time talking to voters in Scotland just now about what is important to them, they would find that even independence supporters are still overwhelmingly going to be voting first and foremost for a government, no matter what anyone else might want them to do. In the present circumstances, if the SNP were to try to use the next Scottish Parliament election as a proxy referendum, then you can probably say hello to a thumping Unionist majority at Holyrood. That's not because there's a thumping majority or anything like it out there for the Union, because there isn't. Rather, it'll be because most people – even independence supporters – will rightly conclude that there are lots of other pressing issues also needing decided. By standing on a platform not of 'independence, nothing less' but instead 'independence and nothing else', Scotland's main pro-independence party would be showing that it was no longer capable of being both pro-independence and being a government at the same time. And good luck getting Scotland to independence without having a pro-independence Scottish Government taking decisions in Scotland. There are a couple of reasons why Alex Salmond embraced the idea of a pre-legislative referendum as part of his moves to professionalise the SNP that he led. (Image: JASON REDMOND) Firstly, it was to help decouple independence supporters from their (then) loyalty to the Labour Party. But also, it was to allow people who wanted SNP representation to vote for the party, knowing that if it came to it, independence could be only decided later on in a separate vote for that purpose. While it was that first group who helped take Scotland so close in 2014, it was the second group of 'soft' SNP supporters who were instrumental in the 2011 SNP landslide which made that referendum possible at all. It was a shrewd move from a man who knew exactly what he was doing when he did it. And it was informed by the hard data that had come in from SNP canvassers all over the country, which had started to show that support for independence was not always the same as support for the SNP and vice versa. So by all means let a thousand flowers bloom in our strategic thinking. But let us always be realistic, grounded in reality and looking outwards to those we still need to persuade, rather than trying to set a political course based solely on what might make us feel good personally.
