███ News first broke the news on Friday that the Trump administration is proposing a move that would allow faith-based adoption and foster care providers to receive federal money without compromising their beliefs on traditional marriage .\nA senior White House Official confirmed to us that Health and Human Services would be introducing new federal rules detailing that faith-based groups only need to adhere to nondiscrimination provisions passed by Congress , not any previous agency regulations . Back in 2016 , the Obama Administration added sexual orientation language to an HHS rule , forcing faith-based groups to choose between their biblical beliefs on marriage or receiving federal money to serve their communities .\n`` This Administration is committed to doing rule-making right , and to removing regulatory barriers that prevent non-profits from doing what they do best—serving the needy and vulnerable in their communities , '' according to this Senior White House Official . `` The Administration is also fully committed to preserving the religious freedom rights of faith-based organizations , and we are proud to announce this proposed rule today doing just that . ''\nSince the new rule would apply to only laws passed by Congress , that means faith-based groups would have to comply with the three main federal laws on equality : the 1964 Civil Rights Act , the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act . All of them protect citizens against religious discrimination but none of them mention sexual orientation .\nIn the days before President Obama left office , HHS added the controversial regulation with language covering sexual orientation . The Trump Administration rule would make that regulation null and void . Currently , if faith-based groups want to apply for federal funds , they must request a waiver from the Obama rule . The proposal , that will be announced Friday , is the first step in the regulatory process . There will be a time for public comment before it goes into effect . It is expected to be challenged in court .\nThis move should not come as a shock to those who have followed President Trump 's directives closely . The White House has moved to protect medical workers who , due to their religious beliefs , want to opt-out of procedures such as abortion and assisted suicide . They also took action to make sure religious businesses can choose to not enroll in health insurance plans that cover contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs .\nAs for protecting the rights of faith-based adoption and foster care providers , Trump has been very clear . At the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year in Washington , Trump gave a hint of things to come . `` My administration is working to ensure that faith-based adoption agencies are able to help vulnerable children find their forever families while following their deeply held beliefs , '' the president remarked . It 's a controversial issue as lawmakers , think tanks , and advocacy groups grapple over whether faith-based groups should be funded by the federal government if they choose not to place children in the homes of same-sex couples .\nWhat is n't controversial is that there is a foster care crisis in America – 443,000 children are in foster care and about 100,000 are waiting to be adopted . For the last five years , the foster care crisis has continued to get worse . The Trump administration believes the new rule will make it easier for faith-based agencies to stay in business and with this crisis boiling over , that 's vital to the well being of hundreds of thousands of children . In the past , the administration has pointed to certain cities that saw foster care problems increase substantially after prohibiting faith-based agencies from taking part in their efforts .


Has it finally happened that when a man says he is making job decisions around his family we can finally believe him , as opposed to wondering when the email exchanges with his outside honey are going to come out ?\nThis past week , two of this country 's most powerful men — who work in a city where power is everything and work is king — both made career decisions with personal and family needs at the center .\nIn case you missed it , Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan , chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee , laid down some conditions for seeking the position of House Speaker — and one of them was that his caucus accept that he would be spending less time on the road , because he needs to spend time with his three young children .\nThen , Vice President Joe Biden announced this week that he will forgo a third try at the presidency , in part because he and his family had needed time to recover from the death of his son Beau .\nIt is a new day if these two men — one a Democrat , one a Republican ; one in the final chapters of a storied career and one smack in the middle of one — can each say , without hesitation or ridicule , that he needs to be home for dinner and not just on Thanksgiving .\nIt 's hard to describe what a big deal that is unless you are up close and personal with the lifestyle , not just of politics , but of many jobs in the current era : the 24/7 on-call expectation , the constant deadlines , the schmoozing and networking that go on and on into the wee hours , night after night .\nLet 's set aside a certain presidential candidate who is said to have derided a female lawyer as `` disgusting '' when she requested a break from a deposition to go use her breast pump ; let 's talk about how hard it is even when people want things to be different .\nBack in 2009 , the New York Times wrote about how the newly elected President Obama spoke about making the White House more `` family-friendly . '' His chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is said to have replied , with his characteristic candor , that it was `` family-friendly to your family . ''\nThe piece went on to describe the absolutely typical 60- to 70-hour weeks , with aides taking work calls on school field trips and scheduling classroom visits at 10 p.m .\nAnd of course politics has particular features that make life hard on families : The New Yorker 's Amy Davidson makes a powerful case in a piece this week that Paul Ryan is demanding relief not from the demands of legislating , but from relentless fundraising trips .\nEither way , it 's always been the case that the most talented and most sought-after do what they will , and the rest of us do what we must . How could it be otherwise in an environment where workers in many companies get their schedules handed to them just a few days or even hours ahead of time ?\nThat might be why , when Working Mother magazine recently surveyed more than 1,500 mothers on their work-life balance issues — they called it the `` juggle struggle '' — they found that two-thirds of the respondents actually valued job security as the most important factor in choosing a place to work . Fewer than half cited flexibility or even pay and benefits . It sounds to me that in the current environment , a lot of women have given up hope that their jobs will help them live their lives .\nThey just want some stability , and they will work the rest out for themselves .\nStill , it does mean something when powerful , public figures — and , let 's face it , not just the women who have been driving the work-life balance conversation — are out , loud and proud about their family responsibilities , and not just the photo op but the actual people .\nIt 's often the case that the rest of us learn to seek what celebrities get first . And if that means time to take care of ourselves and our families , bring it on .


Why Paid Family Leave Has Become A Major Campaign Issue\nLance Mercier knows his job gets harder when a co-worker goes out on leave . But he recently also learned that raising a newborn involves , as he puts it , an `` insurmountable '' amount of work .\nThe 39-year-old bank manager from Silver Spring , Md. , is currently on leave from work taking care of his newborn son with his wife , Luz .\n`` As a manager who has had a lot of people go out on leave of absence , it absolutely sucks when they go out on leave , '' he said . `` This puts everything back into perspective for me . ''\nIn fact , he will likely end up taking more time off from work than his wife will . Lance 's job provides full pay for three months . Luz , meanwhile , gets eight weeks off at 60 percent pay . She can take extra eight weeks of unpaid leave if she wants .\nLance has a new appreciation for family leave , and he 's not the only one . For the first time , paid leave has a prominent place in a presidential election . In this week 's Democratic presidential debate , for example , Hillary Clinton took a swipe at California Republican Carly Fiorina 's opposition to paid family leave .\n`` California has had a paid-leave program for a number of years , '' Clinton said , adding , `` and it has not had the ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have . We can design a system and pay for it that does not put the burden on small business . ''\nNPR has tackled the question of why the U.S. stands virtually alone in not mandating paid family leave , but here 's another perplexing one — why now ? New parents have needed leave for , well , for as long as there have been working parents . And it 's true that workers did get unpaid leave in the 1990s . But what happened in the last few years to nudge paid family leave onto the national political stage ?\nHere is a list of factors that brought the policy into the spotlight :\nNo , paid leave is n't purely a women 's issue , but it is true that with more moms working ( not to mention the rise of single parenting , usually by moms ) , families need someone to mind the kids . Two-thirds of children live in homes where all parents work , as the White House reported last year , up from 40 percent in 1970 .\nWomen are also one-third more likely to take leave from work than men are , according to the Labor Department , and the gap is greater for women taking time off to care for family members . Indeed , moms are far more often the caregivers to sick children than dads are .\nMoreover , it 's an issue that spans all sorts of divides — race , education and class , for example . The conversation surrounding women and work may have been loud among the white-collar set ( think Sheryl Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter ) , but the women with the least access to paid leave of any kind are , in fact , the least-educated and lowest-paid women .\nFinally , women are increasingly better-educated than men — we just learned recently that for the first time , more American women have bachelor 's degrees than men . As women 's economic potential catches up to men 's , it makes sense that they 'd also push for a policy that allows them to hold onto that power .\nNot only do women use paid leave ; they also turn out to vote in greater numbers than men — a gap that has only widened over the years , according to data compiled by Rutgers University .\nIt 's only a 4-percentage-point gap , but it has grown considerably , and in presidential elections , small shifts in voter participation can make a huge difference .\nOnce again , paid leave is n't purely a women 's issue ( see No . 3 below for proof ) , but it is still something women take more advantage of than men , thanks to both access and cultural values . Women are twice as likely as men to get paid leave , according to one Labor Department study . And to the extent that that drives their votes , it could drive women to candidates that support paid leave policies .\nQuite simply , it appears that men have been changing how they feel about work-life issues . Men are increasingly minding the kids — the number of stay-at-home dads is on the rise , as is the amount of time men are spending with the kids .\nOne 2014 study showed that Millennial men are less traditional in their views than their older counterparts ( and those older men 's views have also shifted substantially ) , overwhelmingly rejecting the notion that it 's the woman 's job to stay home with the kids , while the man goes to work .\n`` As the conversation becomes less gendered , the number of people interested in this issue increases , '' said Linda Houser , a professor at Widener University , who has studied the economic effect of paid leave . And she adds it 's not just about having kids . `` It 's also becoming care-giving neutral , as well . The care-giving support needs of aging adults are also becoming more prominent . ''\nYou could look at this cynically — more men wanted paid leave , so we started talking about it . And you would n't be entirely wrong . Men are , after all , still overwhelmingly the ones running the country .\nBut when you consider how many men are now supporting their families alongside wives with equal ( or higher ) earning potential — and working alongside an increasingly better-educated female workforce — it makes sense that men would start wanting to help women stay on an upward career ( and earnings ) trajectory .\nThink back to 2008 , when paid leave just was n't a big issue on the presidential campaign trail . Fast forward to today — President Obama hosts summits on working families , brought paid family leave into the State of the Union for the first time and mandated it for federal workers .\nAnd when the leader of the country drags an issue into the spotlight , that makes it fair game .\n`` Support from Obama is important in this most recent wave , '' said Ruth Milkman , professor of sociology at The Graduate Center at City University of New York . `` He 's not in a position to do anything at the federal level , but I think using the bully pulpit of the presidency has helped . ''\nBut then , what nudged Obama to finally make this a policy priority ? His second-term `` bucket list '' might be one answer . You could also argue it was people like Sandberg and Slaughter and other activists for paid leave expanding the conversation around work-life balance . Or the three states ( New Jersey , California , and Rhode Island ) that have paid-leave programs . ( Washington has also passed a paid leave law but its implementation has been delayed . )\nTo be clear , President Obama was n't — by a long shot — the first politician to push paid family leave . But raising its profile almost certainly made more room for other politicians to talk about it as well .\nOf course , it does n't hurt that family-friendly policies like paid leave are popular . A recent poll from pro-leave group Make it Work found that 81 percent of likely 2016 voters thought policies like paid sick and family leave are a good idea .\nBut then there 's a catch : people like paid leave , but it 's not at the very top of their priority lists .\n`` I think when you talk about some of these policies that we think can really provide some relief for working families ... generally , people think about these policies , and they make sense , '' as Democratic strategist Karen Hicks told NPR 's Tamara Keith last week . `` But I think people tend to have a narrow view of it . And so if everything 's going OK for them right now , this is not a top-of-the-list kind of priority . ''\nAnd that brings us back to Lance Mercier . Paid leave just was n't something he thought much about — until he had a kid to take care of .\n`` My mindset was different , '' he said of when he was in his 20s . `` It was all about work , work , work , work , '' he said . `` But now , as soon as that baby comes out , your life changes . I know you 've heard that time and time again , but everything changes . ''


The White House is pushing back against claims that First Lady Melania Trump is being hypocritical for criticizing attacks on her teenage son Barron , but not her husband 's attack on 16-year-old Greta Thunberg\nWhite House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said Friday that Barron was in a different category from Thunberg because she 's a climate activist `` who travels the world giving speeches . ''\nGrisham 's statement came one day after President Trump attacked TIME Magazine 's decision to dub Thunberg `` Person of the Year . ''\n`` So ridiculous , '' Trump tweeted . `` Greta must work on her Anger Management problem , then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend ! Chill Greta , Chill ! ''\nMEGHAN MCCAIN : TIME 'S 'PERSON OF THE YEAR ' SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE WHISTLEBLOWER , NOT GRETA THUNBERG\nAfter Trump 's attack , some accused Melania Trump of hypocrisy given that she had just defended her son Barron against a Stanford University law professor who mentioned him during a House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing .\n`` A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics . Pamela Karlan , you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering , and using a child to do it , '' the first lady said in response to a quip by Pamela Karlan .\nTIME NAMES GRETA THUNBERG ITS 2019 PERSON OF THE YEAR\nThe first lady frequently receives criticism over the apparent irony in her fronting the `` Be Best '' anti-cyber-bullying campaign given her husband 's habit of mocking political opponents and others on Twitter .\n“ It is no secret that the president and first lady often communicate differently — as most married couples do , ” Grisham said .\nFormer first lady Michelle Obama encouraged Thunberg while traveling in Vietnam this week , saying , “ don ’ t let anyone dim your light , ”\nMrs. Obama added : “ Like the girls I ’ ve met in Vietnam and all over the world , you have so much to offer us all . Ignore the doubters and know that millions of people are cheering you on . ”\nThunberg responded to Trump 's attack by changing her Twitter profile description to describe herself as a `` teenager working on her anger management problem . ''


The city of Somerville , Massachusetts , has passed an ordinance making it one of the first cities in the nation to officially recognize polyamorous relationships . The city no longer limits the number of people included in a partnership .\nThe change , which was unanimously passed by the city council last week , required only a minor shift in language . Instead of defining a relationship as an `` entity formed by two persons , '' Somerville now legally defines it as `` entity formed by people . ''\nThe Somerville Journal reports that the momentous revision actually came about as a last-minute addition .\nCouncilor Lance Davis , chair of the Legislative Matters committee , was drafting new legislation to recognize domestic partnerships — something the city had yet to do . According to Davis , that ordinance was revised to bring requirements for domestic partnerships in line with those of other marriages .\n`` During our initial conversations , a couple things jumped out , '' Davis said . `` The first draft required domestic partners to notify the city of any change of address , which struck me as not in line with what married folks have to do , and required that they reside together , which again struck me as something I 'm not required to do as a married person , so we got rid of those provisions . ''\nThen , only an hour before the ordinance was set to be voted on , Councilor J.T . Scott asked why its wording confined a partnership to just two people .\n″ [ He ] reached out and said , 'Why is this two ? ' And I said , ' I do n't have a good answer , ' '' Davis told the Journal . `` I tripped over my words a bit , and played devil 's advocate , but I had no good reason . So , I pulled it out , went through quickly making whatever word changes necessary to make it not gendered or limited to two people . ''\nThe new language went before the council on June 25 , and was signed into law by the city 's mayor four days later .\nIt 's estimated that 4 % to 5 % of people living in the U.S. are currently participating in polyamorous relationships , or what 's otherwise known as consensual or ethical non-monogamy , a practice in which partners maintain more than one sexual or romantic relationship with each others ' knowledge and consent . For comparison , that means non-monogamy is about as prevalent as the number of Americans who identify as LGBTQ , which is estimated to be about 4.5 % of the American population .\nDavis said that he 's `` consistently felt that when society and government tries to define what is or is not a family , we 've historically done a very poor job of doing so ... It has n't gone well , and it 's not a business that government should be in , so that guided my thinking on this . ''\nIt is illegal in all 50 states to be married to more than one person — which is known as polygamy , not polyamory . Polyamorous people who try different kinds of arrangements — such as a married couple with steady outside partners — run into their own legal problems .\nThere is no legal framework for polyamorous families to share finances , custody of children or the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage . Likewise , there are no legal protections against people facing discrimination for being in a non-monogamous relationship .\nAndy Izenson , senior legal director of Chosen Family Law Center in New York , told the Journal that Somerville 's ordinance is a step in the right direction .\n`` I think it 's pretty amazing — strategies like this are the best chance we have of moving towards a legal understanding of family that 's as comprehensive as it needs to be to serve all families , '' Izenson said .\n`` I 've seen a few other small-scale or local entities that have taken steps towards recognizing that relationships between adults are not only between two adults , but this is the first time I have seen this strategy brought to fruition . ''


Joanna Maxon , a 53-year-old Christian mother of two , was searching for ways to advance in her career as a supervisor and began looking into graduate schools .\nShe decided on Fuller Theological Seminary , a religious graduate school based in Pasadena , because it combined things she valued : her faith and her studies . So in 2015 , she started taking classes online and at the school ’ s regional campus in Texas and worked toward a master of arts in theology degree .\nThree years into her degree program and just a few classes away from graduating , Maxon received a letter notifying her she had been expelled from the school .\nNow , Maxon , who lives with her wife Tonya Minton in Fort Worth , is suing Fuller , alleging the college violated Title IX rules that forbid educational institutions from discriminating against students on the basis of sex .\nJoanna Maxon , left , and her wife , Tonya Minton ( Joanna Maxon )\nPaul Southwick , Maxon ’ s attorney , alleges the school also violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and is seeking compensation of at least $ 500,000 to cover attorney fees and Maxon ’ s federally funded student loans , according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in a U.S. District Court in Central California .\nSouthwick said that because Fuller accepted federal aid and had not received a religious exemption , it must adhere to federal laws , including Title IX .\n“ Mrs . Maxon is a Christian woman who took her studies seriously , ” the lawsuit states . “ She worked diligently on the courses in her program . Her peers and professors respected and admired her . She deserved more than a cold letter dismissing her . ”\nOn its website , the Fuller Theological Seminary states : “ With a seminary community that comes from hundreds of traditions and backgrounds , we listen , wrestle , dialogue , and come away strong. ” Its Title IX and community guidelines are also listed on the website .\nMaxon ’ s background , however , was apparently not acceptable to an employee in the school ’ s financial aid department , who noticed on Maxon ’ s tax filings that she was married to a woman and alerted school officials , according to the lawsuit .\nPartway into her studies at Fuller , Maxon and her husband divorced and she began a relationship with a woman . After same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S. , the two married in 2016 .\nThe campus ’ Title IX coordinator , Nicole Boymook , notified Maxon she was being investigated after the marriage was brought to school administrators ’ attention and said she could respond by writing a letter to the dean , according to the lawsuit .\nIn her letter , Maxon explained her relationship , saying she had made a “ financial , emotional and legal commitment to the person I love , ” and said she ’ d like to discuss her case over coffee .\nDean Marianne Meye Thompson responded to her letter on Oct. 9 , 2018 : “ Whenever violations of our sexual standards are brought to Fuller ’ s leadership ’ s attention , we address them as dictated by our policies and procedures . I am instructing the registrar to dismiss you from the seminary , effective immediately . ”\nMaxon ’ s expulsion came as a surprise , Southwick said . While there may have been bumps in the road for other LGBTQ students attending Christian schools , Maxon said she had received only love from Fuller , her attorney said . According to the lawsuit , Maxon spoke openly about her marriage and her family and felt supported by classmates and professors .\nSouthwick said the Fuller Theological Seminary doesn ’ t prohibit same-sex relationships or require students to adhere to a specific statement of faith , like other Christian schools in California . Around the same time that Maxon was expelled , Azusa Pacific University students were incensed when the university announced it had reinstated a ban on same-sex relationships after quietly removing the prohibition from its policies .\nFor Maxon , the love and support from her peers gave her a false sense of safety , Southwick said .\nA portrait of school founder Charles E. Fuller , second from right , hangs inside the seminary ’ s library . ( Brian van der Brug/███ )\nThough the college does allow same-sex relationships , it does not allow “ homosexual forms of explicit sexual conduct ” and has made clear that it believes sexual intimacy is reserved for a marriage between a man and a woman , Southwick said .\nAccording to the lawsuit , at no point in Maxon ’ s time at Fuller did administrators ask whether she engaged in “ homosexual forms of explicit sexual conduct . ”\nThe dean didn ’ t explain why the school had expelled her , the lawsuit says . Maxon and Southwick tried to settle the issue with the seminary for several months before the lawsuit was filed , but they couldn ’ t come to an agreement , the attorney said .\n“ I didn ’ t expect them to expel me , ” Maxon told The Times . “ It was almost a surreal experience . I couldn ’ t even talk about it for months . I really felt like I lost a connection to a community that supported me . ”\nFuller Theological Seminary officials said they could not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit because it relates to a student , but did say they followed community standards and a statement of faith that students agree to when applying to the school .\n“ As a historically multi-denominational seminary and a convening place for civil dialogue — with a commitment to academic freedom — we strive to serve the global Christian church in its various perspectives , ” school officials said in an emailed statement . “ We remain committed to these relationships in all their complexities while maintaining community standards and a statement of faith that apply to various areas of beliefs and behavior . Students are informed of and explicitly agree to abide by these standards when applying to the institution . ”\nSouthwick said he thought this was the first lawsuit filed against a college accused of expelling a student because of a same-sex relationship — but it ’ s not the first time someone has been kicked out of school for that reason .\nThe lawyer said he hopes the suit will help change discriminatory policies so more LGBTQ individuals can pursue an education at Christian schools .\n“ It wasn ’ t just about money , ” Southwick said . “ It was about Fuller ’ s treating [ LGBTQ students ] with transparency . What ’ s happening with Joanna is going to keep happening more and more . Policies at these institutions have a real impact on people . ”


‘ By 2034 , the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits . ’\nSadly , America ’ s forthcoming “ economic tsunami ” is so predictable that our government issues an annual warning forecasting the year when — absent real reform — the monster waves will overtake all Social Security recipients and substantially reduce payments .\nAm I an alarmist ? No , just a realist , because once again I read the annual Social Security statement that arrived in the mail . The year 2015 was the first time I noticed and wrote about the government-issued warning , shown below , that appears on page two under “ Your Estimated Benefits. ” Three years have transpired , and it ’ s no surprise that Congress still has taken no action to solve this impending crisis — scheduled for 2034 , only 16 years from now .\n“ Your estimated benefits are based on current law . Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time . ”\nTranslation : Wishful thinking that is politically almost impossible . No member of Congress , from either party , will vote to reduce the monthly Social Security payments received by their constituents knowing how that is a permanent one-way ticket back to their home district .\n“ The law governing benefit amounts may change because , by 2034 , the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits . ”\nTranslation : Because Congress refuses to confront this problem , we regret to inform you that in 16 years your monthly payment will be reduced by about 23 percent . If you now receive $ 2,000 monthly , in 2034 your payment will be $ 1,540 . Don ’ t complain that we didn ’ t warn you !\nCue the legions of gray-haired protest marchers with walkers and canes ! Cue the heartbreaking stories of seniors who can no longer afford their rent .\nThe harsh reality is that even though the government admits that it will soon be able to “ pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits , ” the reduction could be even greater and sooner . The following projections show trends from four of my annual Social Security benefit statements :\nAccording to the Trustees of Social Security , the problem is fueled by two factors : First , from now until 2034 , “ the ratio of workers paying taxes to support each Social Security beneficiary will decline significantly from 3:1 to 2:1 . In 1970 , this ratio was nearly 4:1. ” Second , by 2034 the total number of beneficiaries “ is projected to reach 87 million — 41 percent more than the number in 2017 . ”\nOf course , aging Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964 are central to the issue . Pew Research reports that in 2019 there will be 72 million of us .\nUnfortunately , time is running out for Social Security to be drastically reformed . Beginning in 2026 we ’ ll see what I call the Social Security “ bulge years. ” This is when all Boomers , including the youngest born in 1964 , will have turned 62 and be eligible to collect retirement benefits .\nThen , eight years later in 2034 , when the 1964 crop celebrates their 70th birthdays and the oldest Boomers turn 88 , the “ bulge ” is projected to burst , and only 77 percent of benefits can be paid . Sixteen years from now — if the problem is not properly addressed — such a drastic reduction has the potential to shake this nation to its very core .\nMeanwhile , the cost of Social Security is staggering as displayed on the U.S. Debt Clock . ( What I often refer to as the U.S. government ’ s “ ticking time bomb . ” )\nToday , Social Security is the government ’ s second-largest annual budget expense at $ 967.5 billion . ( It ’ s surpassed only by Medicare/Medicaid at $ 1.085 trillion . )\nBut in 2022 , the Debt Clock ’ s furthest future year , the cost of Social Security is projected to be $ 1.166 trillion — the largest budget expense — surpassing Medicare/Medicaid at $ 1.138 trillion . Remember , 2022 is still four years from the beginning of the “ bulge years ” that start in 2026 , when Social Security costs will significantly escalate .\nNow get ready for some numbers that should spur Congress into action — but won ’ t .\nCurrently , per the Debt Clock , Social Security ’ s liability is $ 17 trillion , but that will grow to $ 24 trillion by 2022 . Even worse by comparison is Medicare/Medicaid with its current liability at $ 27.8 trillion and slowly rising to $ 28.4 trillion by 2022 .\nThe answer is bold leadership while the economic tsunami is still offshore .\nMoreover , both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid , along with federal-employee and veterans benefits and debt held by the public , feed into the “ mother of all numbers ” — the U.S. government ’ s total unfunded liabilities . The cost of benefits that the U.S. government is obligated to pay its citizens now stands at $ 113 trillion , but increases to $ 140 trillion by 2022 .\nContrast those immense unfunded liabilities with the U.S . Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ) and federal tax revenue :\n• GDP , now at $ 20 trillion , is projected to increase to only $ 22 trillion by 2022 .\n• Federal tax revenue , currently at $ 3.33 trillion , rises to $ 3.4 trillion by 2022 .\nIt does not take a math genius to recognize that sitting in drab Washington , D.C. , federal buildings are teams of budget analysts who know that Social Security retirement is not the only government benefit program that will be forced to cut smaller monthly checks in the ensuing decades . According to the Social Security Trustees , for example , “ Without legislative action , approximately 11 million disabled people and their families could face across-the-board benefit cuts of 7 percent in 2028 . ”\nThe question is when and how will our elected leaders break that news to the American people , since Congress refuses to take any action reforming any part of Social Security .\nThe answer is bold leadership while the economic tsunami is still offshore .


The tide may be turning against those who 'd advocate cuts to Social Security — and Paul Krugman could n't be happier .\nIn his latest column for the New York Times , Krugman celebrates the growing chorus in favor of expanding Social Security benefits and explains why America 's looming retirement crisis makes an expansion such a good idea .\nBefore he gets there , however , he takes on two popular arguments against expansion . The first comes from those who say that life expectancy has gone up since Social Security was created , and the retirement age should go up too . Krugman notes that while life expectancy has increased , the uptick is among educated and affluent workers . For low-income and low-education laborers , life expectancy has actually decreased . `` So this common argument amounts , in effect , to the notion that we can ’ t let janitors retire because lawyers are living longer , '' Krugman writes .\nThe second argument Krugman tackles , put forward recently by the Washington Post , is that the poverty rate for seniors is low — the implication being that they do n't need further assistance , anyway . Krugman 's response is to note that the official measurement of poverty among seniors is widely seen as flawed , and flawed in a way that underestimates levels of senior poverty . While many believe the poverty rate among seniors to be 9 percent , Krugman says it 's more likely around 15 percent . And what 's more , it 's likely to increase in the years ahead as more struggling retirees enter the system .\nBut the biggest reason to expand Social Security , Krugman says , is the failure of 401 ( k ) s. `` At this point , '' Krugman writes , `` it 's clear that the shift to 401 ( k ) s was a gigantic failure . Employers took advantage of the switch to surreptitiously cut benefits ; investment returns have been far lower than workers were told to expect ; and , to be fair , many people haven ’ t managed their money wisely . ''\nAs a result , we ’ re looking at a looming retirement crisis , with tens of millions of Americans facing a sharp decline in living standards at the end of their working lives . For many , the only thing protecting them from abject penury will be Social Security . Aren ’ t you glad we didn ’ t privatize the program ? So there ’ s a strong case for expanding , not contracting , Social Security . Yes , this would cost money , and it would require additional taxes — a suggestion that will horrify the fiscal scolds , who have been insisting that if we raise taxes at all , the proceeds must go to deficit reduction , not to making our lives better . But the fiscal scolds have been wrong about everything , and it ’ s time to start thinking outside their box .\nUltimately , he concludes , an expansion of Social Security is unlikely in the near-term . Nevertheless , Krugman writes , `` it ’ s an idea that deserves to be on the table — and it ’ s a very good sign that it finally is . ''


The underlying financial condition of Social Security and Medicare did not change greatly in 2012 and both are still on borrowed time , trustees of the massive , politically sensitive programs said in separate annual reports issued Friday .\nThe longer Congress waits to deal with the financial shortfalls both programs face due to an aging population , the more painful the solutions will need to be , the trustees said . The window for effective action “ is in the process of closing ... as we speak , ” public trustee Charles Blahous warned at a briefing for reporters . “ The primary story this year for Social Security is the cost of another year ’ s delay , ” he added .\nProjections for Social Security ’ s financial health are “ essentially unchanged , ” Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said . The trust funds for retirement and survivors benefits and a separate fund for disability payments , when considered together , have a projected depletion date of 2033 , unchanged from last year ’ s annual report . After the reserves were depleted , continuing payroll tax receipts would be sufficient to pay three quarters of promised benefits through 2087 .\nMedicare trust funds run out of money sooner than those for Social Security . The trustees say the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund – one of two funds that support the program – will have enough money to cover its obligations fully until 2026 – which is two years longer than predicted in last year ’ s report . After that , the share of hospital costs that could be financed with payroll tax revenues would decline from 87 percent in 2033 to 70 percent in 2050 and later , the trustees said .\nHealth and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius , one of the trustees , said that President Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act “ has helped put Medicare on more stable ground , ” without eliminating services to recipients through various cost-reducing measures .\nIn a White House blog post , National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling noted that the Medicare trustees project that the Part B premium , which pays to cover doctors ’ services , would not increase between 2013 and 2014 .\n“ Clearly we have one near-term forcing event ” in terms of prompting congressional action , said public trustee Blahous , a research fellow at Stanford University ’ s Hoover Institution . The disability insurance trust fund is projected to be exhausted by 2016 . Beyond that date , payroll tax receipts would be able to pay only 80 percent of scheduled disability benefits . One option for dealing with the shortfall would be to divert funds from the retirement benefit trust fund , but Mr. Blahous notes that would only add to the long-term problems facing the retirement fund .\nThe political and financial stakes are huge in attempting to address Social Security ’ s and Medicare ’ s financial woes . Some 58 million Americans currently receive Social Security benefits , the Associated Press says . And as Acting Labor Secretary Seth Harris said at Friday ’ s briefing , many employers have stopped paying pensions where the benefits are set in advance .\n“ This is not your grandfather ’ s retirement , ” he said , making Social Security and Medicare even more important to seniors .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThe public trustees warned that “ each passing year of legislative inaction reduces the likelihood that a solution can be found that is acceptable to lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. ” Waiting until 2033 , when the retirement trust fund runs out , would require huge cuts in benefits to keep the system solvent .\nBenefits would have to be cut 23 percent across the board – including those already being received by retirees . If an effort was made to confine the cuts to those newly eligible for retirement but not those already getting benefits , “ even wiping out 100 percent of their benefits would be insufficient ” to close the system ’ s funding gap , Blahous said .


Think of all that 's happened since the start of the new year — the Oscars , March Madness , failed resolutions . Now imagine if throughout that time , all the men in the US had taken vacation while all the women worked — but the women did n't get paid any more than the men .\nThat 's the concept behind Equal Pay Day , which this year is happening today . Women 's equality advocates use Equal Pay Day to symbolize how wide the national gender wage gap is . Last year , the median full-time year-round working US woman earned 78 percent of what a comparable man earned . At that rate of pay , she 'd have had to work until today to make up for that gap .\nHowever , the wage gap is n't just about the 22 fewer cents women earn for every man 's dollar . When it comes to investing for retirement , the financial difference between being a man and a woman spirals into the hundreds of thousands of dollars .\nLet 's consider a man and a woman getting started saving for retirement . Let 's assume they start saving at age 25 . The median 25- to 34-year-old man earns $ 40,000 , according to the Education Department , compared with $ 35,000 for a woman . A Bankrate retirement calculator shows that given those early salaries , the savings difference at retirement is nearly $ 200,000 .\nA lot of assumptions go into the calculations here — I gave them both 3 percent raises each year ( just above inflation ) , and also had them contribute 10 percent every year , with modest employer matching . Also , it assumes both the man and woman work without stopping ( for , say , having children ) and get the same percentage-level raises .\nYou can tweak these assumptions for yourself on Bankrate 's calculator and test out people of different education levels — the gap grows to nearly $ 300,000 with college graduates , for example — but the point here is n't an exact measure so much as magnitude , and that magnitude is huge .\nI 've done the hypothetical math above , but in the real world , American men and women also have some huge retirement savings differences . The average IRA balance for men in 2012 was nearly $ 140,000 , compared with less than $ 82,000 for women , according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute .\nAdd on top of that the fact that US women live nearly five years longer than men , and the retirement gap seems all the more yawning . Women simply need to plan for longer retirements , on average , but we systemically pay them less throughout their working lives .\nConsider the guy or lady who sits next to you at the office . A minor differential in your pay right now could make a world of difference between how the two of you fare in retirement .\nRetirement is n't the only place this wage gap plays out . Even one year out of college , that woman is earning substantially less than the man — 82 percent of what he earns , according to one 2012 study from the American Association of University Women . Using Education Department wage data and assuming the man and woman both go to public four-year colleges and end up with an average debt load ( just under $ 27,000 ) , the young man will end up paying around $ 1,000 less than the woman in interest and spend nearly two years less than she does paying off loans .\nA woman 's lower pay does n't just mean she can afford a lower-rent apartment or have less disposable income now . It gives her a lot less freedom to make that money work for her . Consider what that young college-grad man could do with that extra $ 400 each month once he finishes paying off his loans . He could buy a house earlier ( likely a bigger one than the woman will be able to afford , by the way ) or sock it away for retirement , making that already wide retirement gulf even wider .\nAnd of course , lots of Americans do n't even have college degrees or 401 ( k ) s , but they 're just two examples of the bigger problems the wage gap creates . Whether it 's those things , buying a house , or saving up for kids ' college , women simply have far fewer resources for longer-run investments . Add in the premium women pay for basic hygiene and all the unpaid work they do , and equal pay does n't seem like such a huge thing to ask for .


Republican presidential hopeful Chris Christie proposed pushing back the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare for future retirees on Tuesday as part of a plan to cut deficits by $ 1 trillion over a decade , an approach he said would confront the nation 's `` biggest challenges in an honest way . `` In a speech in New Hampshire , site of the first 2016 presidential primary , the New Jersey governor also proposed cutting off Social Security benefits in the future for retirees with annual incomes of $ 200,000 or more . He said seniors who wish to work after age 62 should be exempt from the payroll tax . `` Through its unwillingness to address our biggest challenges in an honest way , the Obama administration has put us on a perilous course for both our short-term and our long-term futures , '' Christie told the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College . `` See , I think it 's time to tell the truth about what we need to do in order to solve our problems and put our country back on the path to greater prosperity . `` The proposal marked an attempt to establish Christie 's deficit-cutting credentials in a race that has three other Republicans as declared presidential candidates , with more to come . Christie says he will decide in May or June whether to launch a campaign for the nomination.The speech tackled cherished benefit programs often considered untouchable in politics . It comes as Christie faces an uphill battle for a pension overhaul in New Jersey , where he has been sued by more than a dozen public workers ' unions for scaling back promised payments into pension funds as part of a deal that was hailed as a landmark during his first term.Now Christie says those changes did n't go far enough.The speech was Christie 's first major policy address of the 2016 season and offered more specifics than he 's typically offered on national issues . He proposed increasing the retirement age for Social Security to 69 , beginning with gradual increases in 2022 . He also proposed raising the early retirement age to 64 from 62 . The Medicare eligibility age would be increased gradually to 67 by 2040.He also proposed turning Medicaid into a block grant program to the states , which Republicans have long proposed and critics say could mean reduced benefits over time.Christie portrayed himself as a no-nonsense Washington outsider who is `` not afraid to tell you the truth as I see it , where you like it or not . `` `` This is a conversation Washington politicians do n't have because they do n't believe that the American people have the appetite for hard truths , '' he said . `` Once again , they underestimate the people that they serve . Americans not only deserve fairness , they deserve the honesty of their leaders . ''


Social Security is one of the most contentious issues in American politics , and as the 2020 presidential campaign continues to ramp up , candidates have looked at ways to change the program . In particular , an increasing number of proposals have looked for ways to expand Social Security to extend larger benefits to some recipients , especially those in demographic groups who have greater financial needs .\nSen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass. , has long been a proponent of expanding Social Security . She recently revealed her latest proposal about the program . Warren 's strategy would make major changes to Social Security , boosting benefits for all and imposing new taxes on high-income earners to finance them .\nIs Social Security going bankrupt ? :3 facts most people get wrong on retirement income\nWarren 's proposal focuses on the financial straits that many Social Security recipients are in right now . According to her numbers , more than 7 million senior citizens live under the poverty line . With costs of living on the rise , especially in key areas for seniors like health care , it 's hard to make ends meet . Few older Americans have significant retirement savings , and many even still have considerable debt to repay .\nWarren also notes that younger workers have even greater challenges . Between tough economic conditions in the labor market and high debt , it 's been hard for typical Gen Xers and millennials to make much headway toward financial security .\nLastly , Social Security 's financial condition poses an approaching threat . Current expectations have the Social Security trust funds running out of money in 2035 , and that could bring about benefit cuts of roughly 20 % .\nSocial Security:3 things that determine how much money you get\nIn response , Warren offers a simple remedy : a higher Social Security benefit for all . Under the proposal , everyone would get a $ 200 increase in monthly payments from Social Security , including both retirement and disability benefits . It would also tie future cost of living adjustments to a measure of inflation that 's tailored toward the basket of goods and services that older Americans have to pay .\nCertain groups would see even larger increases . Family caregivers would have the value of their work recognized for Social Security eligibility and benefit calculation purposes , which Warren says will especially help women and people of color . Disabled widows and widowers would be able to claim survivor benefits earlier , and Warren 's plan would reinstate special minimum benefit rules that would ensure an annual benefit of at least 125 % of the federal poverty line . Public-sector employees would avoid negative adjustments from provisions like the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset .\nIn order to cover these benefits and shore up Social Security 's future finances , Warren would impose two new taxes . First , a new payroll tax would apply to wages above $ 250,000 , with employees paying 7.4 % and employers matching with 7.4 % of their own . This is above the 6.2 % employee rate that applies to current wages up to $ 132,900 in 2019 , under the rationale that Social Security should have a similarly progressive tax rate structure as the regular income tax system does . Warren notes that the current payroll tax scheme for Social Security is regressive as it charges no tax on earnings above the wage base limit .\nSecond , individual filers making more than $ 250,000 or joint filers above $ 400,000 would owe a heightened net investment income tax at a rate of 14.8 % . That would be in addition to the current 2.9 % net investment income tax , which is based on the Medicare payroll tax withholding rate .\nElizabeth Warren at NYC rally : 'Donald Trump is corruption in the flesh '\nWarren argues that the new taxes would simply be `` asking the top 2 % to contribute their fair share to the program . '' It 's not the first time that the presidential candidate has targeted the rich , with a previous proposal seeking to impose a wealth tax on those with a net worth above $ 50 million .\nCritics of that wealth tax were quick to note ways that wealthy taxpayers could potentially avoid paying it . With the payroll tax system already having the collection infrastructure in place across millions for employers throughout the nation , the new Social Security taxes would avoid some of the enforcement problems that the wealth tax would have faced .\nThe Warren proposal breaks new ground by largely disconnecting the benefits that Social Security pays from the wages on which the program collects taxes . That 's sure to draw the ire of opponents , and regardless of what happens in the 2020 election , the issue of Social Security will remain a contentious one well into the future .\nThe Motley Fool is a ███ content partner offering financial news , analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives . Its content is produced independently of ███ .


A boy 's desperate call from aboard a doomed South Korean ferry captured the horror on the ship as it sank in the Yellow Sea last Wednesday , killing at least 104 and leaving hundreds more missing .\n`` Save us ! We 're on a ship and I think it 's sinking , '' Yonhap news agency quoted the boy , who is among the hundreds missing , as saying . His phone call to emergency dispatchers , believed to be the first made from the ship , was initially routed to fire officials before being patched through to the coast guard some two minutes later .\nWord of the plaintive call came as investigators said their earlier conclusion that the sunken ferry had made a sharp turn shortly before the disaster was incorrect , and that the vessel changed course much more gradually .\nThe fire service official asked him to switch the phone to the captain , and the boy reportedly responded , `` Do you mean teacher ? '' The pronunciation of the words for `` captain '' and `` teacher '' is similar in Korean , according to Reuters .\nThe boy 's frantic call was followed by about 20 other calls from children on board the ship to the emergency number , the fire service officer said . The boy who made the first call is among the missing , according to the report .\nAbout 250 of the more than 300 missing or dead are students from a single high school , in Ansan near Seoul , who were on their way to the southern tourist island of Jeju .\nWhile data from the ferry , named Sewol , initially indicated the ship made a J-shaped turn before listing heavily and ultimately sinking , a ministry of ocean and fisheries official said Tuesday the data had been incomplete and that the true path of the ship became clear when the data was fully restored .\nOn Tuesday , dozens of police officers in neon green jackets formed a cordon around the dock of Jindo island as bodies pulled from the sea were brought in . Since divers found a way over the weekend to enter the submerged ferry , the death count has shot up .\nOfficials said Tuesday that confirmed fatalities had reached 104 , with nearly 200 people still missing . If a body lacks identification , details such as height , hair length and clothing are posted on a white signboard for families waiting on the island for news .\nThe ship 's captain , Lee Joon-seok , and two crew members have been arrested on suspicion of negligence and abandoning people in need . Prosecutors detained six other crew members -- four on Monday and two on Tuesday -- but have yet to obtain arrest warrants for them .\nBodies are being identified visually , but family members have been providing DNA samples in case decomposition makes that impossible .\nThe bodies are then driven in ambulances to two tents : one for men and boys , the other for women and girls . Families listen quietly outside as an official briefs them , then line up and file in . Only relatives are allowed inside .\nThis heartbreak awaits many families of those still missing from the submerged ferry Sewol , or at least those whose relatives ' bodies are ultimately recovered . Families who once dreamed of miraculous rescues now simply hope their loved ones ' remains are recovered soon , before the ocean does much more damage .\n`` At first , I was just very sad , but now it 's like an endless wait , '' said Woo Dong-suk , a construction worker and uncle of one of the students . `` It 's been too long already . The bodies must be decayed . The parents ' only wish right now is to find the bodies before they are badly decomposed . ''\nIn Ansan , funerals were held for more than 10 of the teens Tuesday , and education officials were building a temporary memorial that they expected to complete by Wednesday .\nAt the city education office , parents issued a letter pleading for more government help in the rescue , and condemning its response so far . The letter also criticized media for reporting false rumors , and for doggedly pursuing interviews with surviving children .\n`` The children say that when they look at the window , sudden fear of water seizes them . What the children need is utmost stability , '' said Jang Dong-won , father of a rescued female student .\nThe families , and South Koreans more broadly , have at times responded with fury . The captain initially told passengers to stay in their rooms and waited more than half an hour to issue an evacuation order as the Sewol sank . By then , the ship had tilted so much it is believed that many passengers were trapped inside .\nAt a Cabinet briefing Monday , President Park Geun-hye said , `` What the captain and part of the crew did is unfathomable from the viewpoint of common sense . Unforgivable , murderous behavior . '' The comments were posted online by the presidential Blue House .\nLee , 68 , has said he waited to issue an evacuation order because the current was strong , the water was cold and passengers could have drifted away before help arrived . But maritime experts said he could have ordered passengers to the deck -- where they would have had a greater chance of survival -- without telling them to abandon ship .\nA transcript of ship-to-shore communications released Sunday revealed a ship that was crippled with indecision . A crew member asked repeatedly whether passengers would be rescued after abandoning ship even as the ferry tilted so sharply that it became impossible to escape .\nEmergency task force spokesman Koh Myung-seok said bodies have mostly been found on the third and fourth floor of the ferries , where many passengers seemed to have gathered . Many students were also housed in cabins on the fourth floor , near the stern of the ship , Koh said .


Moon Jae-in was elected South Korea ’ s President on Tuesday upon promises to reengage with North Korea . He says that building economic cooperation with the regime of Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un would help raise living standards , reducing tensions as well as the economic burden of any future reunification . And even before Moon had delivered his victory speech , this key campaign pledge was already whirring into action .\nOn May 2 , South Korea ’ s Ministry of Land , Infrastructure and Transport ( MOLIT ) issued an “ emergency notice ” to invite firms to submit bids on potential infrastructure projects in North Korea , particularly regarding the mining sector .\n“ [ Seoul ] will develop … mines and establish power generation facilities and transportation infrastructure around mines , ” the MOLIT said , according to a translation by NK News . “ Profitability will be secured by owning the development rights of resources or exploiting mineral resources . ”\nGet The Brief . Sign up to receive the top stories you need to know right now . Choose your country United States of America Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Congo , Democratic Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands ( Malvinas ) Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory , Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania , United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Virgin Islands ( U.S. ) Virgin Islands ( British ) Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please enter a valid email address . Please select your country . I can confirm I have read and accept the Terms Of Use . Please check to proceed . Sign Up Now You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time . See our Privacy Policy for further details . Thank you ! For your security , we 've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered . Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters . If you do n't get the confirmation within 10 minutes , please check your spam folder .\nThe MOLIT was not acting under the direction of the then unelected Moon , but clearly saw the changing tenor of South Korean policy toward the Kim regime . It is , of course , politically expedient for government officials to endear themselves to an incoming administration by exploring policies it might like . And there are also powerful South Korean business interests that would benefit from reengagement with the North , and have stepped up lobbying officials and lawmakers since the December impeachment of outgoing conservative President Park Geun-hye .\nThere ’ s little doubt Moon would be receptive to the idea . He told the National Assembly shortly after his election victory , “ If the conditions shape up , I will go to Pyongyang. ” He also named Suh Hoon as his pick to head the National Intelligence Service , subject to National Assembly approval . Suh has already indicated he would be willing to go to Pyongyang with a view to holding another inter-Korean summit , similar to those he was involved in organizing in 2000 and 2007 . It is easy to see why .\n“ These steps reduce both Koreas ’ interstate war risks , providing the sides with communication and non-military options to de-escalate in the case of a provocative incident such as a sixth nuclear test by North Korea , ” writes Alison Evans of the IHS Markit analysis firm .\nStill , the shift presents a challenge for U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump , who has looked to squeeze the Kim regime in response to its escalating missile and nuclear tests . Projects like that proposed by the MOLIT would undermine the economic pressure put on the regime by China , which in March suspended North Korean coal imports for the rest of the year in line with tough new U.N. sanctions .\nRead More : TIME Exclusive : Will South Korean Presidential Hopeful Moon Jae-in Pull the World Back From Nuclear War ?\nMore intriguingly , though , those same U.N. sanctions also ban collaborating in coal , copper , gold , iron , magnesite and zinc — some of the specific industries listed in the MOLIT “ emergency notice . ”\n“ Put another way , MOLIT is putting out a call for bids to violate sanctions , ” write Marcus Noland and Kent Boydston in an analysis blog for the Peterson Institute for International Economics .\nExploring the possibility of violating sanctions is not the same as actually violating them , though it demonstrates some of the logistical hurdles of Moon ’ s vow to rekindle the “ Sunshine Policy ” of engagement with the North . Other than international economic measures , which Moon would either have to flout or renegotiate , angering Washington and Tokyo among others , there is domestic legislation to navigate . Last year ’ s North Korean Human Rights Act , for example , requires vulnerable groups to be prioritized for any aid . To make sure of that , you need independent monitoring of the North Korean populace , which has historically made the regime extremely uncomfortable .\nOf course , any engagement would be welcomed by China , which has long advocated trying to change the regime ’ s bad behavior through the Chinese Communist Party ’ s favorite panacea of economic development . On Tuesday , a spokesperson for China ’ s Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed that a North Korean delegation would even attend next week ’ s summit on the Belt and Road Initiative — President Xi Jinping ’ s signature transnational trade and infrastructure development project along the route of the old Silk Road .\nThe idea of winning the hearts and minds of North Korean through their pockets isn ’ t revolutionary , of course . In 2006 , former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak trumpeted a similar economic engagement policy dubbed Vision 3000 , owing to its aim to raise North Korea ’ s per capita income to $ 3,000 in order to lessen the pain of eventual reunification . ( Last year , South Korean GDP was $ 1.38 trillion ; North Korea ’ s was 1 % of that at $ 16 billion . ) The caveat , of course , was that North Korea would have had to take concrete measures to denuclearize .\nBut Vision 3000 suffered from other problems that also undermine the new MOLIT proposal : “ It ’ s tantamount to neocolonialism and that really angers the North Koreans , ” says Christopher Green , a North Korea expert at Leiden University in the Netherlands .\n“ Saying to North Korea , ‘ we ’ re going to take control over your economy ’ may make perfect sense from a mercantile South Korean perspective , ” adds Green . “ But it ’ s going to be like a red rag to a bull for the North Koreans . You have to be a lot stealthier than that . ”\nOwing not least to founding father Kim Il Sung ’ s principle of juche — or “ patriotic self-reliance ” — the biggest barrier to economic engagement with North Korea is the regime itself . Previous attempts to coax the Kim clan to embrace liberal economic polices have all failed dismally . A large free trade zone adjacent to the Chinese city of Dandong , at the southern edge of the 880-mile shared border , lies empty . The key architect of the project was Kim Jong Un ’ s uncle Jang Song-thaek , who was executed in December 2013 .\nEven small steps like reopening the Kaesong Joint Industrial Complex near the DMZ — where South Korean firms had access to cheap North Korean labor — depends on North Korean acquiescence . ( The complex was shuttered by Seoul in February 2016 following a North Korean satellite launch . )\nIn 2013 , 123 South Korean companies were paying 53,000 North Korean workers annual wages amounting to $ 90 million , which were directly collected by the North Korean government . One might think that the regime would welcome the reopening of the plant , as well as Moon ’ s expressed desire to expand it to 20 times the size — presuming the regime would then collect 20 times the wages .\nHowever , an expanded Kaesong was always the plan signed off by Kim Jong Un ’ s father , Kim Jong Il . It ’ s just that phase one of the original project was all that opened , because North Korea was wary of the potential destabilizing effect of too many of its citizens having so much exposure to affluent South Koreans .\nThe North Korean leadership knows that it would be risky to embrace full economic liberalization , given the loosening of societal controls that would entail . The presence of a democratic , thriving and culturally homogeneous South Korea across the DMZ means any loosening of controls could prompt agitation for reunification , spelling the end of the regime .\nRestrained reengagement is , of course , very possible , especially if China keeps up economic pressure . But anything more , especially involving a binding agreement to denuclearize , is as fraught a prospect now as it ever was .


The United States has sent two F-22 stealth fighter jets to South Korea to join Seoul forces in military exercises after North Korea warned the Korean Peninsula has entered `` a state of war . ''\nA Pentagon spokesman confirms to Fox News that the F-22 Raptors were deployed to Osan Air Base in South Korea from Japan on Sunday to support ongoing U.S.-South Korean military drills .\n`` This exercise has been planned for some time and is part of the air component of the Foal Eagle exercise , '' spokesman George Little told reporters Monday .\nMeanwhile , North Korean leader Kim Jong Un gathered legislators Monday for an annual spring parliamentary session that followed a ruling party declaration that nuclear bomb building and a stronger economy were the nation 's top priorities .\nThe meeting of the Supreme People 's Assembly follows near-daily threats from Pyongyang , including vows of nuclear strikes on South Korea and the U.S . In a statement released Sunday , U.S. military in South Korea urged North Korea to restrain itself .\n`` ( North Korea ) will achieve nothing by threats or provocations , which will only further isolate North Korea and undermine international efforts to ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia , '' the statement said .\nMeanwhile , North Korea said Saturday its armed forces , `` will blow up U.S. bases for aggression in its mainland and in the Pacific operational theatres including Hawaii and Guam . ''\nKim also threatened to shut down a border factory complex that is the last major symbol of inter-Korean cooperation , according to the Associated Press .\nThe threats are seen as part of an effort to provoke the new government in Seoul to change its policies toward Pyongyang and to win diplomatic talks with Washington in order to gain more aid .\nThe White House says the U.S. is taking North Korea 's threats seriously , but has also noted Pyongyang 's history of `` bellicose rhetoric . ''\nOn Thursday , U.S. military officials revealed that two B-2 stealth bombers dropped dummy munitions on an uninhabited South Korean island as part of annual defense drills that Pyongyang sees as rehearsals for invasion . Hours later , Kim ordered his generals to put rockets on standby and threatened to strike American targets if provoked .\nMilitary analysts have said a full-scale conflict between North and South Korea is extremely unlikely , noting that the Korean Peninsula has remained in a technical state of war for 60 years . But the North 's continued threats toward South Korea and the United States have raised worries that a misjudgment between the sides could lead to a clash .\nIn addition to the military exercise , the U.S. will fortify its defenses against a potential North Korean missile attack by adding more than a dozen missile interceptors to the 26 already in place at Fort Greely , Alaska , Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has also announced .


Story highlights U.S. deploys F-22s to South Korea as part of joint military exercises\nNorth Korea said it was entering a `` state of war '' with the South\nSeoul views the threat from Pyongyang in `` a serious manner ''\nThe South Korean president on Monday warned North Korea that any provocative moves will be met with `` a strong response '' as the United States deployed stealth fighter jets in the tense region as part of joint military exercises .\n`` If there is any provocation against South Korea and its people , there should be a strong response in initial combat without any political considerations , '' President Park Geun-hye said at a meeting with senior defense and security officials , according to her office .\nHer comments came after North Korea rattled off fresh volleys of bombastic rhetoric over the weekend , declaring that it had entered a `` state of war '' with the South and labeling the U.S. mainland a `` boiled pumpkin , '' vulnerable to attack .\nThe two Koreas are technically still at war after their conflict in the early 1950s ended in a truce not a peace treaty .\nJUST WATCHED South Korea returns rhetorical fire Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH South Korea returns rhetorical fire 02:24\nJUST WATCHED Business as usual in Korean econ zone Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Business as usual in Korean econ zone 02:35\nJUST WATCHED Public sentiment in North , South Korea Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Public sentiment in North , South Korea 02:28\nJUST WATCHED North Korean war map targets Texas Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korean war map targets Texas 02:43\nThe secretive regime of Kim Jong Un has delivered a steady stream of verbal attacks against South Korea and the United States in recent weeks , including the threat of a nuclear strike .\nIt has lashed out at the U.S.-South Korean military drills currently under way and at the tougher U.N. sanctions that were slapped on it after its latest nuclear test in February .\nAnalysts have expressed heavy skepticism that the North has the military capabilities to follow through on many of its melodramatic threats .\nBut concerns remain that it could carry out a localized attack on South Korea , as it did in November 2010 when it shelled Yeongpyeong Island , killing four people .\nThe United States has sought to show its willingness to defend its South Korean ally by drawing attention to displays of its military strength during the drills taking place in South Korea .\nWashington 's recent announcements concerning practice flights over South Korea by B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers , both of which can carry both conventional and nuclear weapons , have not been lost on Pyongyang , which has described them as acts of U.S. hostility .\nThere was no immediate reaction on North Korean state media Monday to the U.S. statement saying the stealth fighters , F-22 Raptors , were sent to the main U.S. Air Force Base in South Korea to support air drills in the annual Foal Eagle training exercises there .\nU.S. and South Korean officials have been trying to strike a balance between acknowledging that the North 's rhetoric is cause for concern and at the same time playing down the severity of the threat .\nPark said Monday that she was `` viewing the threat from North Korea in a serious manner . ''\nBut a senior U.S. Defense Department official said late last week that there were `` no indications at this point that it 's anything more than warmongering rhetoric . ''\nSouth Korea has noted that scores of its workers have continued in recent days to enter and leave the Kaesong Industrial Complex , a joint economic cooperation zone between the two Koreas situated on the North 's side of the border .\nJUST WATCHED North Korea ready for war ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH North Korea ready for war ? 02:32\nJUST WATCHED How far can North Korean missiles go ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH How far can North Korean missiles go ? 01:10\nJUST WATCHED U.S. B-2 exercise over Korean peninsula Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH U.S. B-2 exercise over Korean peninsula 02:31\nThat is despite Pyongyang cutting a key military hotline on the border and threatening to shut down the complex .\nThe heightened tensions have prompted North Korea 's traditional allies , China and Russia , to urge the different sides to keep a lid on the situation .\n`` Moscow expects all parties to exercise as much responsibility and restraint as possible in light of North Korea 's latest statements , '' the Russian foreign ministry said Saturday according to Russian state broadcaster Russia Today .\nChina , which expressed frustration over Pyongyang 's most recent nuclear test , also called for calm .\n`` We hope relevant parties can work together to turn around the tense situation in the region , '' Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Friday , describing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula as `` a joint responsibility . ''\nBut the coming weeks appear laced with potential for more bouts of saber-rattling .\nNorth Korean delegates are currently gathered in Pyongyang for the Supreme People 's Assembly , the country 's rubber stamp parliament .\nAnd April 15 is the anniversary of the birth of Kim Il Sung , the nation 's founder and the grandfather of Kim Jong Un . That day , the biggest national holiday in North Korea , is usually marked by large-scale parades .\nMeanwhile , the U.S.-South Korean military exercises that have already stirred so much ire from the North are due to continue until the end of the month .\nFinally , some analysts have noted that Pyongyang has carried out some sort of military provocation within weeks of every South Korean presidential inauguration .\nPark , the current president , took office on February 25 , five weeks ago .


Five days after losing her daughter to a drug overdose in a South Florida sober home , Jennifer Flory found herself standing before a task force set up to investigate sober homes .\n“ My daughter passed away on Thursday night and I ’ m coming here to get her stuff – and her – and to find out why she died , ” the grieving mother from Illinois told the assembled group in West Palm Beach .\nMonths later , she said her public appearance so soon after her daughter ’ s passing was aimed at helping other parents and other addicts avoid the pitfalls that took her daughter ’ s life .\n“ Alison knows that I love her and care about her and miss her terribly . But that can wait , ” she said in an interview with the Monitor . “ Right now there is an urgent need for people to be helped and saved . ”\nWith more than 140 people dying every day in the US from drug overdoses , addiction treatment has become a growth industry across the country . South Florida , in particular , is a national destination for those seeking treatment .\nIt isn ’ t just Florida ’ s warm and sunny weather . Those suffering under addiction are targeted by aggressive marketing tactics featuring national advertising and patient recruiters .\nIn the process , Florida has also become a prime location for unscrupulous drug treatment centers that seek to recruit young addicts covered by their parents ’ insurance policies . Many of the “ patients ” are allowed to continue to use drugs while the treatment center overcharges their parents ’ insurance policy for unnecessary drug tests and other unneeded services .\nFederal , state , and local authorities are cracking down , but the insurance scams continue .\nFlory says chief among her mistakes was assuming that everyone in the drug treatment industry was honest and actually cared about the well-being of her daughter .\n“ I think people need to know , there are scam artists out there , ” she says . “ Don ’ t just send your kid to Florida and expect a miracle . ”\n“ I didn ’ t know the industry wasn ’ t [ closely ] regulated . I didn ’ t know that addiction treatment wasn ’ t under the supervision of a doctor at all times , ” Flory says . “ I was picturing white lab coats and stuff like that . I didn ’ t know . I didn ’ t know any of it . ”\nInstead of being helped along a road to recovery to a new life , Flory ’ s daughter was recruited away from an effective drug treatment program and lured into a sham program .\nAs reported in the first part of this two-part series , the program , Reflections Treatment Center in Margate , Fla. , was set up largely as a mechanism to overcharge health insurance policies for unnecessary tests and treatments at inflated prices . As the operators of the treatment center grew richer , Flory ’ s daughter experienced relapse after relapse while living in a fake “ sober home ” where illicit drug use was permitted .\nIt was in one such sober home where , on Oct. 14 , Alison and one of her housemates , Nicole De La Pena , smoked crack cocaine laced with the synthetic opiate carfentanil . Alison passed out and never woke up . Nicole spent a week in the hospital and is suffering from memory loss .\nAlthough Reflections was later raided by the FBI and shut down , many other treatment centers and sober homes in South Florida are continuing to operate under a similar business model based on insurance fraud .\nCriminal investigations are ongoing . And a special task force is exploring how to reform the sober home industry to weed out bad actors .\nIn the meantime , parents are continuing to struggle to identify legitimate and effective treatment centers and recovery residences . Flory and other mothers of addicts are part of an informal support network that offers help and advice to those seeking to identify quality treatment centers and avoid the fraudsters .\nFlory and Johanna De La Pena , Nicole ’ s mother , both offer the same essential piece of advice to parents or loved ones of an addict seeking treatment : Talk to other moms of addicts .\nBoth of them say that parents and others researching rehab programs are at a significant disadvantage when trying to differentiate legitimate treatment centers and recovery residences from the bad actors in the industry .\nThe issue of selecting a treatment center and recovery residence arises at a time of crisis not only in the life of the addict , but also in the lives of those affected family members who are attempting to help the addict . In other words , the addict isn ’ t the only one whose life is in turmoil .\nThese vulnerable family members are confronted by a well-organized , well-funded , and in some cases highly deceptive marketing effort designed to attract and recruit new patients . Sometimes they offer free airfare to Florida , a tactic that experts say should raise red flags to family members .\n“ I would have never sent her [ to Florida ] if I knew then what I know now , ” Ms. De La Pena said in an interview . “ I would have picked a different state . I would have researched the facilities more . I would have gotten references . ”\nShe says when her daughter agreed to enter treatment in Florida , she was so desperate to do something to help her daughter that she did not fully investigate the drug treatment industry .\n“ At the time my daughter was sent off to Florida I was still kind of in denial about her addiction , ” De La Pena says . “ In my hometown , we don ’ t really talk about this . ”\nExperts stress that not all drug treatment centers in Florida are engaged in health-care fraud . There are many long-established , reputable , and effective treatment facilities in the state . One key piece of advice offered by many experts and many parents of addicts : Find a reputable treatment center and stay there . Resist patient recruiters , they say .\nThe difficulty is being able to ignore fancy advertisements and slick website presentations to identify a truly reputable treatment center . Equally important is the ability to identify legitimate recovery residences and bypass fake sober homes , flop houses , and drug dens .\nAddiction recovery specialists suggest parents and other loved ones ask a few key questions :\nIs the recovery residence certified by the Florida Association of Recovery Residences ? If not , look elsewhere .\nDoes the sober home offer residents free rent and money for food ? Experts say residents should pay their own way . Offers of free rent or other benefits can be evidence of illegal patient brokering .\nIs the recovery residence coed ? Experts say sober homes should be segregated by gender and not facilitate dating-type relationships between patients , which in the early stages of drug treatment can take the focus off recovery and make relapse more likely .\nIs the staff of the sober home trained in CPR ? Do they have a supply of naloxone in the house for use as an emergency antidote in the event of an overdose ?\nAre random drug tests performed ? How much do they cost ? Such tests should cost $ 5 to $ 10 .\nAre referral fees paid to the sober home from a drug treatment center if residents enroll at that center ? If so , it suggests the presence of an illegal kickback scheme , specialists say .\nFor some parents , dealing with a child who is an addict requires not only fortitude but strategy and cunning .\nAfter spending a week at her daughter ’ s bedside at a South Florida hospital following Nicole ’ s overdose in October , De La Pena decided it would be best to take her daughter home to Texas .\nShe arranged for security officers to accompany them from the hospital to the airport until they safely boarded their flight . As they entered the line for TSA screening , Nicole saw an opening .\n“ She just started running and I couldn ’ t get to her , ” De La Pena says . Nicole apparently wanted to be with her boyfriend , who was also in a drug treatment program .\nIt took two months of pleading on the telephone before Nicole agreed to return to her mother ’ s house in Texas . Soon , Nicole began plotting her return to Florida .\nDe La Pena refused to pay for a flight to Florida . But that didn ’ t stop Nicole ’ s boyfriend from pulling strings to arrange a “ free ” Texas-Florida flight .\n“ These kids already know that they can get free flights back to Florida , so when she was here she was already planning it , ” De La Pena says .\nThe mother says she was able to intercept and stop attempts by two different treatment centers to send a free ticket to Nicole . It is a common recruitment tactic to offer to pay for airfare to Florida if the would-be patient has health insurance and is willing to enroll in their treatment program .\nMaureen Kielian is the Florida director of the anti-drug group Steered Straight and a member of the Sober Homes Task Force . She says there is a relatively easy way to determine if a treatment center is engaging in an illegal activity such as patient brokering – offering something to a prospective patient in exchange for their agreement to enroll in a particular treatment program .\n“ If they are being offered anything free , they are being brokered , ” she says . “ The way to think about it is if my son had leukemia , would this be happening ? ” she says . “ Would they be flying you in for treatment ? Would they be offering you free anything ? No . ”\nAfter dealing with her daughter ’ s overdose , De La Pena knew about patient brokering and was twice able to intercept and block free plane tickets meant for Nicole .\n“ Then one of them did purchase her a ticket , ” she says . “ It was late at night when I saw it and I personally contacted the person and told them they better cancel . They were really ugly and rude . So I told them I am canceling my insurance because I know that is the only reason they wanted her out there . They said , no , we ’ ve already verified the coverage. ” De La Pena upped the pressure . She told them what they were doing was illegal . They disagreed .\nAfter the telephone call ended , De La Pena sent them a text message with the business card of an official with an anti-fraud task force in South Florida . She repeated her statement that what they were doing was illegal . “ Within minutes he texted me back , saying that he had canceled the flight , ” she says .\n“ The next morning , my daughter did not know that I had canceled the flight , ” she says . “ I was asleep at six in the morning when she got a ride to the airport . ”\nDe La Pena sent a text message to her daughter who , by then , was stranded at the airport . The message : Give your mom a call when you are ready for a ride home . Nicole called her grandmother for a ride .\nThe time away from Florida has been good for her daughter , De La Pena says . Nicole has a job and has been drug-free for three months . The mother says it is easier to fight off patient recruiters when they think there is no insurance policy to fleece .\nFlory says she believes any chance her daughter Alison had for recovery was lost amid the ongoing fraud in South Florida . “ I think she was doomed by the people who were supposed to help her , ” she says .\nFlory has hired a lawyer to investigate a possible lawsuit against one or more of the drug treatment centers Alison attended .\nThe lawyer , Susan Ramsey of West Palm Beach , says the increased law enforcement scrutiny of the treatment industry in recent months is causing some people to close their doors and move on .\n“ There are those who are going to pull up their shingle and go find some other scam . I think that is happening , ” she says . “ But the struggle is going to continue for some years . ”\nOne development that Ms. Ramsey says might trigger a rapid cleansing of the treatment industry would be if insurance companies launched their own investigation into past practices and demanded their money back from shady treatment centers and laboratories that overbilled .\n“ That is what they need to do , ” she says . “ That would stop this pretty darned fast . ”\nAt one point De La Pena got the same idea . She called her insurance company and asked them to block a South Florida treatment center from billing more charges to her health insurance plan . “ They declined to do that , ” she says .\nShe called a fraud investigator with the insurance company . He never called back .\nFlory says she will always feel an emptiness from the loss of Alison , her oldest child . But in a cruel twist , her struggle dealing with an addicted child is not over yet .\nFour months after Alison ’ s fatal overdose , her 20-year-old son came to her with a heart-breaking admission .\n“ I ’ m doing heroin and I need help or else I ’ m going to die , ” she says he told her . That ’ s not all . “ He wanted to go to Florida . That wasn ’ t my idea , but he said that ’ s where he wanted to be . ”\n“ So at first it looks like I ’ m doing the same thing all over again , expecting a different result , ” Flory says . “ But now that I know how it works… I have people watching out for him . If I knew then what I know now , I would have seen what Alison was falling into . ”\nThis time will be different , she says . “ I know what to expect . If he is going to get into trouble , I know what the warning signs are and I am going to have him watched like a hawk by all the people I have met . I have a big network of people now who live ( in South Florida ) because I ’ ve made it my business to know them . ”\nIf there is any one rule she will enforce with her son that she did not enforce with Alison it is that he will enroll in a legitimate , high-quality program and remain in it .\n“ You don ’ t move , ” Flory says . “ You don ’ t make any decisions about that . He knows that he is not allowed to make those decisions . ”\nThis is Part 2 of 2 . You can read Part 1 , `` Alison 's story : How $ 750,000 in drug treatment destroyed her life , '' by clicking here .


The United States and South Korea bolstered their alliance this week as Seoul announced that Washington has agreed to deploy so-called “ strategic assets ” to the peninsula .\nLawmakers who have pressed for action to rein in North Korea ’ s thriving nuclear and missile programs applauded the move . They called it a prudent step that will help defend the United States and its allies .\nExperts , though , said the deployment is mostly intended to reassure South Korea .\n“ From an optics standpoint , it sounds really good that we ’ re going to enhance that alliance , ” said Harry Kazianis , director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest . “ Really , what this is , is to reinforce the alliance so Seoul feels comfortable that if there was any contingency , we ’ d be there . ”\nThis week , the South Korean president ’ s national security advisor told lawmakers in Seoul that the United States will begin deploying “ strategic assets ” on a rotational basis as early as late this year .\nThe announcement came after North Korea threatened to shoot down U.S. bombers . It said it has the right to do so because President Trump ’ s recent comments on the country amount to a “ declaration of war . ”\nTrump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in made the agreement on the sidelines of this month ’ s United Nations General Assembly . Chung Eui-young , the South Korean advisor , told lawmakers about it after he was asked if there ’ s “ any crack ” in the U.S.-South Korean alliance , according to Yonhap news agency .\nThe assets that are being deployed have been not specified , but South Korea typically uses the term to refer to B-52 bombers , stealth warplanes , nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers .\nThe United States already has similar capabilities in the region , including F-22 and F-35 stealth aircraft stationed in Japan , and has sent them to South Korea from time to time for military exercises or shows of force . But the latest announcement goes beyond that .\nSenate Armed Services Chairman John McCain John Sidney McCain2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes The Memo : Democrats confront prospect of long primary Defending their honor as we hear their testimony MORE ( R-Ariz. ) said moving strategic assets onto South Korea could help improve intelligence , surveillance and reconnaissance ( ISR ) capabilities there .\n“ Part of that is ISR capabilities so we can monitor what they ’ re doing , ” he said . “ Most of our ISR , as you know , is in the Middle East . ”\nAsked if he ’ s worried North Korean leader Kim Jong Un will see that as a provocation , McCain said he ’ s not .\n“ And if he does , it doesn ’ t concern me , ” he added . “ An ISR has never attacked anybody . … With all the stuff that he ’ s doing , we have to make sure that we are doing everything we can to defend our closest ally . All of this is not meant for offense . It ’ s meant to show them that if we ’ re engaged , that the price of their attack would be extremely high . ”\nThe Senate Armed Services Committee received a classified briefing Thursday on North Korea from representatives of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence .\nMcCain declined to detail what he learned , but described the briefing as alarming .\n“ That ’ s some pretty alarming information , ” he said . “ Most of it , of course , has been out in the media , but they are — it ’ s a very serious situation . ”\nSen. Dan Sullivan Daniel Scott SullivanRomney , Collins , Murkowski only Senate GOP holdouts on Graham 's impeachment resolution GOP worries it 's losing impeachment fight Senate GOP introduces resolution condemning House impeachment inquiry MORE ( D-Alaska ) , an Armed Services member who has been vocal about missile defense to counter North Korea , said positioning strategic assets in South Korea could help the diplomatic effort to curb North Korea .\n“ The one thing I ’ ve been saying all along is that as part of the strategy that the administration has been putting forward is putting forward credible military options helps with making your diplomacy more effective , ” he said Thursday . “ I think that the combination of credible military options … and effective diplomacy are kind of a continuum , and they ’ re related . ”\nRetired Col. Richard Klass , a board member at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation , said the United States would have to send significantly more equipment to South Korea is the North attacked .\nAs such , Klass predicted Kim would feign outrage about the move , but otherwise accept it .\n“ I think anything we do , he will pretend to be really be pissed off , ” Klass said . “ I don ’ t think he thinks it ’ s going to make a whole lot of difference . ”\nKlass said he sees the announcement as signal of commitment to South Korea more than a change in defense capabilities .\n“ It ’ s our way of showing we ’ re doing something rather than just sitting here and throwing verbal jabs , ” he said , in a knock at Trump ’ s rhetoric .\nKazianis , of the Center for the National Interest , likewise said the United States would have to bring in “ a lot more firepower ” for an all-out war with North Korea .\nWhat would really upset Pyongyang , he added , is permanently basing that much firepower in South Korea .\n“ That would really spook North Korea , ” he said . “ They might see that as a precursor to regime change . ”