You might also like...
Check out some other posts from Cedarville University
In a recent piece on CNN ... eyebrows were raised about the state of America's economy.
The article describes a growing disconnect in the U.S. economy: strong growth and rising corporate productivity driven by artificial intelligence, but weak job creation. Companies are investing heavily in AI and automation, which allows them to increase output without hiring more workers — especially in roles involving routine or administrative tasks. This dynamic has produced what economists call a “jobless boom”: profits and productivity rise, while new jobs lag behind.
The Federal Reserve is increasingly concerned because this trend creates risks for both workers and the broader economy. Lower-skilled and entry-level workers face displacement, wage inequality may widen, and traditional unemployment metrics may understate how difficult it has become for people to re-enter the job market. Policymakers now face a harder balancing act as AI reshapes labor demand, raising questions about retraining, social supports, and how to manage an economy where growth no longer guarantees broad-based job creation.
If you're confused - don't feel bad. In fact, if you're a journalist covering this topic - let us help.
Dr. Jared Pincin is a nationally respected expert on economic issues facing the United States of America. He's available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
As negotiations around the war in Ukraine continue to dominate global headlines, a newly surfaced 28-point peace proposal associated with former U.S. President Donald Trump has triggered intense debate across NATO capitals, Kyiv, and Moscow. The document — described in reporting by Reuters, Axios, Sky News, Al Jazeera and other outlets — outlines a framework aimed at ending the conflict but includes provisions that many analysts say could significantly reshape Europe’s security landscape.
A Plan Built Around Ceasefire, Guarantees, and Reconstruction At its core, the plan calls for a formal ceasefire, a non-aggression pact between Russia, Ukraine, and European states, and a set of “security guarantees” meant to deter future conflict. Reporting indicates that Ukraine would receive assurances that any renewed Russian offensive would trigger a coordinated international response. The plan also proposes the creation of a major reconstruction program — potentially financed in part with frozen Russian assets — to rebuild infrastructure and modernize Ukraine’s economy.
The proposal references pathways for deeper Ukrainian integration with Europe, including support for progressing toward EU membership and providing enhanced access to European markets. A large “Ukraine Development Fund” is also mentioned in multiple summaries of the plan.
Provisions Driving the Most Global Pushback The most controversial elements relate to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and long-term security posture. Outlets such as Sky News and Al Jazeera report that the draft would recognize Russian control over Crimea and large parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — areas currently occupied by Russian forces. Ukraine would also be required to formally abandon NATO membership and cap its military at 600,000 personnel.
Additional provisions include restrictions on the presence of foreign troops in Ukraine, phased lifting of sanctions on Russia, full amnesty for war-related actions, and the reintegration of Russia into global economic and political structures. These components have drawn sharp responses, particularly from European leaders who argue the plan could reward aggression and undermine international legal norms.
Dr. Glen Duerr is a citizen of three countries. He was born in the United Kingdom, moved to Canada as a teenager, and then to the United States to obtain his Ph.D. His teaching and research interests include nationalism and secession, comparative politics, international relations theory, sports and politics, and Christianity and politics. View his profile. What Remains Unclear or Still Under Discussion Reporting from Reuters and AP notes that many sections of the plan remain undefined or are still in flux. The exact mechanism behind the proposed security guarantees is not detailed. Oversight of reconstruction funds, timelines for reintegration of Russia, and the legal handling of frozen assets also require further clarification. Some reporting suggests parts of the plan draw from a prior informal Russian “non-paper,” raising questions about the provenance and intent of specific provisions.
Why the Proposal Matters With the war approaching four years of fighting, any formal proposal for ending hostilities carries significant geopolitical weight. Supporters of the plan frame it as a pragmatic attempt to halt loss of life and begin rebuilding. Critics argue it risks legitimizing territorial conquest and weakening the broader post-Cold-War security order.
As governments evaluate the implications, journalists covering defense, diplomacy, and international law will find this evolving proposal central to understanding where U.S., European, Russian, and Ukrainian negotiators may — or may not — be willing to go next.
In All the King’s Men, Robert Penn Warren describes Willie Stark’s final victory. “And there wasn’t any Democratic party. There was just Willie, with his hair in his eyes and his shirt sticking to his stomach with sweat. And he had a meat ax in his hand and was screaming for blood.” Warren’s description is darkly poetic and metaphorical. Stark, the populist governor of a fictional state, did not murder his rivals, but he did destroy them, along with the political party he rode to power. Like Stark, Donald Trump has carved up the Republican Party of old, and in its place, there is just Trump.
This is not the first time a politician has remade a political party, but the death of the G.O.P. threatens to unbalance our political system. We are defined by close elections, tight legislative majorities, and polarized preferences. Neither side in the cultural conflict can achieve core objectives, so the temptation to put more hope and power into the Executive, to skew the system, is mounting.
We can argue about the degree to which past Republicans were truly restrained, especially in government spending, but at least the G.O.P. used to advocate for two seatbelts to keep the body politic safe from accidents: character to govern the self and constitutionalism to limit what government can do to others.
As the G.O.P. grew to rival Democratic power, in the 1980s and 1990s, the New Deal coalition fractured, along with the assumption that simply more power, expertly applied, could solve our problems. Democrat Bill Clinton conceded “the era of big government is over.” Justice Elena Kagan recognized, “we’re all textualists now.” The tug of war between an evolving progressivism and a robust conservatism may not have made for an ideal way to solve problems, but it did encourage humility, born of the recognition that radical actions, even if successful, would be punished.
Dr. Mark Caleb Smith serves as Professor of Political Science and the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. He teaches courses in American Politics, Constitutional Law, and Research Methodology/Data Analysis. His primary research interest is in the field of religion and American politics. View his profile Those days are over. Donald Trump’s Republicans are no longer a restraint of any kind. The seatbelts of the past have been snipped by the same leaders who claimed to buckle them in place. The Epstein Files are the exception of congressional pushback that proves the rule of the party’s degradation.
But what of the appointment of unqualified and incompetent leaders in the F.B.I., H.H.S., Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense? Illegal and extra-judicial killings in the Caribbean? An unexplained and unauthorized military buildup in the same region? Shakedowns of universities and media outlets? Crypto corruption? Tariffs? Strong-arming law firms and firing career civil servants for seeking justice in our courts? The Republican response has mostly been crickets.
There is no longer a major party that pretends to restrain the president through the law out of principle. The real disagreement between Trump Republicans and Biden Democrats is not about should the president abuse his power, but how.
Unless something dramatic happens, the politics of the meat ax will come for us all.
Mark is available to speak with the media regarding the state of politics in America. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview.
