Sound Off
TRUMP TAMES Blue City Crime
Gavin Newsom NEPO BABY
12 Ways to Get FREE STUFF
MENTAL HEALTH New Therapies
OCTOBER 2025 |
Newsmax.com
NOVEL IDEAS TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY The age-old debate about Social Security and how to fix it offers a ton of advice, mostly in the form of gently tinkering with, versus genuinely reforming, a government program extant since 1935. But what’s missing from this debate is the pain- inducing phrase “starting over” — thinking outside the bureaucratic box. Beginning anew means completely
revamping and structuring how Social Security is funded, even how much and when it pays benefits. A nation can’t tax and spend itself to prosperity, and it can’t wish the problem away either. Have state governments given any thought to contributing from their coffers? And how much of corporate taxes actually fund Social Security? What about a bump up there, if applicable? What about a small gas tax increase? Your October article (“Can Social Security Be Saved?”) also cites the possibility of an “investment fund.” OK, but don’t leave such a fund solely to the stewardship of government. It must be managed by the private sector — the best we can find. And not career civil servants, who only care about feeding at the public trough at our expense.
clarence m. barhomme Los Angeles, Calif.
LAFFER CURVE The Laffer Curve, “A Napkin That Changed the World” (August), seems not to have been fully understood by either political party. Just as Democrats usually ignore parts of John Maynard Keynes’ economic theories (the part about temporary debt to spur the economy, which needs to be repaid before the next cycle), so the Laffer Curve advocates frequently overlook the fact that it is a two-sided curve. Yes, at a 100% tax rate the
revenue likely goes quickly to zero. But cutting the rate to zero also produces zero revenue. What the Laffer Curve says is that there is an optimal rate of taxation which produces the maximum possible revenue. Raising or cutting the rates from that point is counterproductive. In the long run, “cut, cut, cut” can
4 NEWSMAX | NOVEMBER 2025
be as bad as “spend, spend, spend” if taken to extremes.
doug simmons Marianna, Fla.
NEWSOM NIGHTMARE In the tradition of the fine American pastime of worrying about who will be the next U.S. president in 2029 before Trump has even finished the first year of his return, let’s not forget about the threat that a Gavin Newsom presidency would pose for this nation. Remember, he mandated masks
during COVID-19, only to be busted at a fancy French restaurant dining in culinary comfort — maskless, with his limousine liberal cronies. This is a supposed leader who botched the management of wildfires, crime, and the homeless. And he thinks he can lecture Texas on redistricting. In short, we can live without this
imperious, know-it-all Golden State king. President Trump is all about individual freedom and security for all Americans. The prospect of Newsom making it to the White House should keep us all awake at night. (“Gavin Newsom, Nepo Baby,” October) greta hartsruv Seattle, Wash.
WASTE OF MONEY Why doesn’t Attorney General Pam Bondi get rid of all white-collar cases that have already been settled by the SEC for less than $1 million? In reviewing the amount of time and taxpayer funds expended on those cases, it’s an enormous waste of money. As the DOJ offers companies non-prosecution agreements for the same cases — why not offer individuals the same? Why do we still have two- tiered justice for these tiny, non-violent cases, ones already adjudicated by the SEC? (“Justice Dept. Probes United Healthcare,” July)
ken howard Boca Raton, Fla.
UNFAIR LAW Colorado has a new law requiring businesses and public entities to use people’s preferred names and pronouns. If someone chooses not to use the stated preferences, they can be charged criminally. Sounds like a violation of the First Amendment and is unfair to those charged who can’t afford to take this unconstitutional law to court. (“State of the States: Pride Flag Flap,” June)
laura goodwin Assonet, Mass.
TAKE ACTION Girls are suing California schools to get boys out of their locker rooms. How can this be allowed? If these girls do not win their case, they should get together and all quit the team. One boy isn’t going to win anything
in a team sport, and the school would have no choice but to forfeit the game.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
