Page 3 The Sun Bay Paper June 1, 2026 Our Savings Matter, but This Bipartisan Push Misses the Mark The New York Times Hunts for an Anonymous White Male Dissent Leftists in the media cannot stand the idea that Team Trump is coming to the defense of white males at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They believe white males should never file a complaint, given their centuries of massive white male privilege. Last week, The New York Times reported scornfully on how discrimination claims by white men and Jews are “Discrimination Cases That Match Trump’s Agenda,” according to their headline. In their view, the EEOC should always match the leftist agenda. It’s supposed to be a captive agency of the Left under every administration. This week, the EEOC sued The New York Times for discrimination against a white male employee who applied for a deputy real estate editor position. Despite experience in real-estate journalism, he was excluded from the final pool of candidates, which was composed of a white female, a black male, an Asian female and a multiracial female. The multiracial female won the job, despite a lack of experience in real-estate journalism. The lawsuit argues the hiring manager at the Times greenlit this external candidate for inclusion in the final interview panel without her first going through the standard interview processes for the position. Moreover, she was chosen despite the company’s own final interview panel rating her less favorably than two other final candidates. Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha claimed the suit was “meritless” and the administration is “blatantly weaponizing a traditionally independent government body to serve a predetermined narrative.” When they say “independent,” they mean liberal. The “predetermined narrative” in this case is exposing the newspaper’s own publicly stated racial and gender quotas. But here’s the really fun part. Charlotte Klein at New York magazine lined up angry anonymous sources inside the paper hunting for this anonymous dissident. Turnabout is fair play, but now the aggressive weaponizers of anonymous sources can’t stand their own game in reverse. Klein relayed: “Reporters at the paper have been scrambling to figure out the employee’s identity, driven in part by bafflement that one of their own colleagues would sell out the paper to the administration, which has used tools of the federal government to attack the press.” Another staffer complained it’s a “(poop)show behind the scenes -- people trying to figure out who the aggrieved person is.” Every day in many ways, The New York Times is using anonymous warriors to attack the administration, and apparently, they shouldn’t have to face their own tactics. One anonymous reporter complained, “You’re giving the Trump administration a weapon while they’re trying to persecute journalists.” Attack them and they’re “persecuted.” When they attack you, it’s Journalism. Inevitably, an anonymous jerk had to proclaim it “absurd” that a white male has filed a discrimination complaint. “I’m sorry, there are plenty of white guys at the top of the New York Times. Not really something that’s holding you back.” That’s wrong. That perception -- that there are too many white guys editing the paper -- is what creates “affirmative” discrimination. This controversy at the Times underlines what we all know -- that the words “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” are devoid of all meaning when deployed by the Left. They can’t stand diverse viewpoints, they don’t want them included, and “equity” is a code word for creating a new policy where white men get exactly the reverse discrimination they deserve for about 400 years. Tim Graham Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center and Executive Editor of the blog NewsBusters.org President Donald Trump and Congress want to help you increase your savings. And you should. At the household level, saving is the foundation of financial security and the seed capital for a better retirement. At the economy-wide level, savings fund investment that expands the capital stock, raises wages and grows the economy. A society that does not save is a society slowly consuming its future. So, any politician who wants to help Americans save more deserves at least a hearing. What should such a politician propose? The first thing to do is remove all government-made barriers to savings. This includes a Social Security design that disincentivizes saving, and a tax code that hits much of our savings twice, as both income and investment returns. Addressing our massive debt -- which threatens to bring inflation back and literally destroy the value of the savings we already have -- would help too. Alas, this isn’t what Trump has in mind with his new executive order directing the Treasury to launch “TrumpIRA.gov,” a portal where workers without employer-sponsored retirement plans can shop for private accounts. And some of them will be able to claim a Federal Saver’s Match of up to $1,000 a year. The plans are vague, but we can get an idea from a bipartisan bill currently before Congress. The Retirement Savings for Americans Act would automatically enroll workers earning below the national median income in new retirement accounts and provide government matching contributions. According to RAND Corporation research, roughly 63 million workers would be eligible for these accounts, and 42 million would qualify for the match. Bipartisan support for the idea is growing. Wall Street firms see new customers. Progressives see expanded government involvement in retirement. Some conservatives see a backdoor route to Social Security privatization. I urge skepticism. Start with the core of the proposal. The Saver’s Match is not a Trump innovation. It was created by the 2022 SECURE 2.0 Act under former President Joe Biden. Trump’s executive order merely accelerates its rollout and expands its visibility. It will be very expensive. Romina Bocca at the Cato Institute writes in The Washington Post that if modeled after the bill mentioned above, then “starting in 2027, low-income workers with existing retirement accounts are set to receive up to $1,000 in matching funds, at a cost to federal taxpayers of $9.3 billion through 2032. Expanding eligibility and automatically enrolling workers without existing accounts, as proposed by the bipartisan Retirement Savings for Americans Act, would be far more costly. Some projections put the price tag at $285 billion over the first decade alone.” That’s real money being added to a federal balance sheet already groaning under the weight of a Social Security system facing roughly $28 trillion in long-term shortfalls. Cont’d. on pg. 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA2ODE3