Day: March 25, 2024

The condition of bankruptcy facing Iran’s pension funds paints a bleak picture of the country’s future, especially as the predicted aging tsunami has yet to begin. This situation is significantly exacerbated by the government’s political interventions, legislation, and the granting of exemptions and state privileges. Instead of providing equivalent financial support, the government has placed the heaviest burdens on the shoulders of workers to partially support society.

The retirement system, aiming to reduce poverty and ensure a dignified life for the elderly, is critically incapacitated. It faces severe financial challenges, with the Social Security Organization reporting that the average income for the elderly falls below the poverty line. Currently, about 70% of payments to three-person households are below the poverty threshold.

Moreover, only 31% of the working-age population contributes to pension funds, with just about 35 to 40% of the elderly population covered by these funds. These funds are battling financial instability, high costs, and imbalances in the retirement system. The financial volatility associated with these funds is increasing and is almost equivalent to the country’s total budget deficit.

Since 2011, the government’s debt to the national pension fund has significantly multiplied, marking a concerning trend. At best, the Social Security Organization now possesses only 15% of the necessary resources. Without urgent measures, it will soon face severe issues. The assets of pension funds are insufficient to cover their debts. Even if the Social Security Organization liquidates its assets and claims from the government, it can only fulfill 15% of its future commitments to current members.

This percentage is even lower for government organizations, typically estimated between 8 to 14%. Yet, even at 15%, more than 85% of pension fund commitments remain unaddressed.

The crisis in pension funds can be attributed to various factors, including demographic changes, economic downturns, management issues, corruption, political interventions, and the enactment of inappropriate laws. Globally, demographic changes are recognized as one of the main crisis factors for pension funds.

The average age of pension fund members is significantly higher than that of the general population, a result of political interventions and the country’s adverse economic conditions. Since 2008, Iran has faced national wealth production crises and inflationary recessions, exacerbating the pension funds’ situation.

High inflation further deepens the crisis in pension funds. Between 2000 and 2005, the job market grew by an average of 4.5%. However, since 2005, Iran’s labor market growth has been less than 1% for a 15- to 20-year period.

Other factors like inflation have also pressured pension funds, with inflation rates exceeding 25% over the past 23 years, occasionally reaching above 35 to 40%. These issues contribute to the financial difficulties faced by pension funds.

Political interventions and laws encouraging early retirement, exemptions, or government privileges have damaged the system. The government has shifted the responsibility for social welfare to workers without bearing equivalent costs. Since 2002, issues such as pension fund crises and population growth threatening social security have been highlighted.

These challenges stem from economic reasons, demographic changes, political interventions, extensive legislation, and the absence of a comprehensive social policy approach.

The government’s failure to pay its debts to pension funds indicates an unsustainable and improper distribution of financial resources. The current government debt to pension funds is about 6,000 trillion rials, roughly 25% of the country’s budget. This trend could lead to a budget deficit for social security that is 3.5 times the national budget in the next two decades.

Facing an aging tsunami in the next two decades, the current retirement system is ill-equipped to manage this challenge. Currently, only 7% of the population is considered elderly, but this figure is expected to rise to 26% in the coming years. Today, over 60% of the elderly are inadequately supported, with 40% living below the poverty line.

As the government turns to printing money to fund pension funds, it places significant inflationary costs on society to meet the needs of 40% of the population. Undoubtedly, the government’s inability to address societal issues has become a factor in creating problems.

However, the issue isn’t just the government’s failure to pay its debts to pension funds. In recent years, news of significant embezzlements from these funds has been prevalent. Moreover, these funds have become the government’s secret resource for covering budget deficits. Another contributing factor is the failure to invest the funds’ capitals in profit and wealth regeneration, which has significantly undermined the country’s social security system under the current governance.

The Supreme Court just heard arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a case that raises important First Amendment issues and exposes government censorship efforts.

Last October, when considering a lower court order prohibiting further censorship, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch described the case as “a coordinated campaign by high-level federal officials to suppress the expression of disfavored views on important public issues.” Indeed, the case highlights troubling tactics of the Biden administration that are better suited to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s fictional totalitarian state, Oceania, in his frighteningly prescient novel, 1984.

There is little dispute about the facts of the case. In essence, Biden administration officials pressured or coerced social media companies to censor posts that challenged the administration’s position on pandemic lockdowns, the safety of vaccines, the COVID–19 lab-leak theory, election fraud, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and a host of other issues. Court records show that the White House specifically targeted COVID skeptics Alex Berenson, Tucker Carlson, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Messages demonstrate the White House demanded that certain posts be taken down “ASAP” and suggested that bi-weekly meetings with social media companies would help in suppressing “disinformation.” If a company pushed back, administration officials threatened anti-trust action and other forms of liability. Biden’s team even went so far as to claim Facebook and other platforms were “killing people” by not aggressively censoring certain information.

After Biden’s comments, Facebook deplatformed multiple users and began providing detailed reports of its efforts to obey White House directives. Ultimately, companies accepted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the final arbiter on what was acceptable COVID-19 information and what was disinformation.

Court records show that “Facebook content-mediation officials would contact [the CDC] to determine whether statements made on Facebook were true or false,” and “Facebook would remove and/or censor claims the CDC itself said were false.”

The FBI also got in on the action. The FBI averred to the social media companies that it was combatting foreign influence. Instead, it was targeting domestic posts promoting stronger border security measures or the Second Amendment. In the case of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the FBI warned of the dangers of foreign hackers and data dumpers despite knowing that the laptop and its contents were real.

Rather than apologizing to the public for its censorship activities, the Biden administration is defending them.

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week, the Biden administration justified its actions by arguing that the social media platforms are private entities that ultimately chose to remove posts or deplatform people. The First Amendment, which protects free speech, applies only to government actors. Hence, the administration denied that its persuasion and suggestions were the proximate cause of the censorship. “So long as the government seeks to inform and persuade rather than to compel,” the administration argued in its brief submitted to the court, “its speech poses no First Amendment concern—even if government officials state their views in strong terms, and even if private actors change their speech or conduct in response.”

Under the law, the government cannot evade responsibility when it has significantly encouraged an action. In other words, the government may not meddle in the editorial decisions of the platforms or direct them on how to exercise editorial discretion. Thus, the question will come down to whether the government was just seeking to inform the social media companies or whether the government compelled or coerced action (or at least meaningfully controlled the private actors).

If nothing else, the facts in the case are ugly and show a gross abuse of power by federal officials.

No matter what the outcome, the plaintiffs—two states and various people affected by the government’s censorship campaign—deserve high praise for bringing these matters to light. The case record demonstrates the heavy-handed tactics and arrogance of administration officials in suppressing speech.

In his opinion in Whitney v. California (1927), the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed that the remedy for allegedly false information and viewpoints “is more speech, not enforced silence.” The Biden administration enjoys the largest bully pulpit in the nation but declined to combat opposing opinions with more speech. It chose threats and hectoring in an effort to enforce silence.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rebuke the government for this conduct. Otherwise, Oceania might be a better name for today’s America.

This article was also published in Washington Examiner

Armenia News  news.am

Georgia PM to arrive in Armenia today  news.am

3 Men in Armenia Attempt to Storm Yerevan Police Station  Voice of America – VOA News

France raised its terror alert to its highest level on Sunday following a terrorist attack that killed at least 137 people at a Moscow concert hall, Report informs via Anadolu.

Russian forces have used nearly 190 missiles of various types and almost 140 Shahed drones, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his regular evening video address, Report informs.

NPR News: 03-25-2024 2AM EDT

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy

Mexican media sheds light on mine problem in Azerbaijan  AzerNews.Az

Weekly review of key events in Azerbaijan’s green economy  Trend News Agency