Feed aggregator

A government document released Tuesday night has sparked outrage in the Chareidi political establishment after revealing that Finance Ministry officials view the cancellation of after-school daycare subsidies as one of the most effective economic tools for pressuring Chareidi men subject to the draft to enlist in the IDF.

While plans to revoke subsidies under the Education Ministry’s Nitzanim after-school program had previously been reported, the newly released document sheds light on why Finance Ministry professionals consider the measure particularly potent: the large number of Chareidi households that receive the benefit and the significant monthly expense families would face if the subsidy were eliminated.

The document summarizes an August 3 meeting chaired by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and attended by Deputy Attorney General Dr. Gil Limon, as well as representatives of the IDF, Israel Police, Finance Ministry and other government agencies.

The meeting focused on expanding financial enforcement measures against individuals who are required to enlist but have failed to report for military service. According to the document, a Finance Ministry representative explained that certain government benefits could exert considerably greater pressure than others because of how extensively they are used within the Chareidi community.

Officials specifically singled out the Education Ministry’s Nitzanim program, which subsidizes after-school care for children.

According to the document, the program “is considered highly effective by the professional officials at the Ministry of Finance for the purpose of increasing the number of recruits.”

Finance Ministry officials explained that their assessment was based on “the scope of households eligible for this benefit, alongside the significant monthly cost it represents.”

The meeting summary consequently stated that “there is particular importance in revoking eligibility for those obligated to enlist with regard to this benefit as early as the upcoming school year.”

The discussion extended beyond after-school care. Finance Ministry representatives also presented a chart analyzing the likelihood that Chareidi households receive various government benefits, apparently as part of an effort to determine which financial sanctions would have the greatest impact. Officials also called for further examination of a Housing Ministry program that provides assistance with rental payments.

Chareidi political figures charged that the policy directly contradicts the government’s stated goal of increasing employment among Chareidi women. They argue that subsidized after-school programs allow mothers to remain at work later in the day, meaning that eliminating the benefit would affect not only the man subject to the draft but also working mothers and their children.

United Torah Judaism MK Uri Maklev sharply condemned the Finance Ministry’s approach, accusing officials of deliberately searching for the most painful financial pressure point within Chareidi families.

“It is shocking to discover in the attorney general’s document how Finance Ministry officials maliciously search for the most harmful and significant tool and present the cancellation of after-school daycare subsidies as an ‘effective tool’ for harming Torah learners,” Maklev told B’Chadrei Chareidim. “This is pure wickedness, cruelty and a moral low.”

Maklev said the policy is particularly troubling because it comes from the same government bureaucracy that regularly speaks about encouraging Chareidi women to enter and remain in the workforce.

“Those same officials who preach about encouraging employment are acting against their own principles. Revoking after-school daycare subsidies is a direct attack on the livelihood and well-being of helpless young children and working mothers, motivated solely by the persecution of Torah learners,” he said.

The revelations are also becoming an election issue, with officials in Degel HaTorah directing criticism at Finance Minister and Religious Zionism chairman Bezalel Smotrich.

The document contains no evidence that Smotrich personally instructed Finance Ministry officials to formulate the recommendation. Degel HaTorah officials nevertheless argued that as finance minister, Smotrich bears political responsibility for policies being advanced by the ministry under his authority.

“There has recently been considerable discussion about Chareidim who are considering voting for Smotrich in the upcoming elections,” the officials said. “Those voters need to examine everything that is actually taking place in the Finance Ministry under his responsibility. Time and again, recommendations emerge from this ministry whose practical effect is severe economic harm to the Chareidi family.”

The Degel officials argued that Smotrich cannot simultaneously court Chareidi voters while distancing himself from recommendations being developed inside his own ministry.

“You cannot court the Chareidi vote while at the same time accepting a situation in which Finance Ministry officials map out the benefits Chareidi families rely upon and examine where revoking them would be especially effective. A minister’s responsibility is measured by what takes place in the ministry under his authority. The Chareidi public will have to take these things into account as well when it goes to the polls.”

{Matzav.com}

Rav Shimon Galai shared a remarkable personal story involving the Steipler Gaon at a gathering marking the 25th yahrtzeit of Rav Avrohom Yaakov Pam zt”l, founder of Shuvu, offering a powerful message about the continued influence of tzaddikim after their passing.

The gathering was held at Rav Galai’s home with leaders of Shuvu, the kiruv organization founded by Rav Pam and with which Rav Galai serves as a member of its presidium.

Addressing the concern that Rav Pam’s passing might mean that Shuvu no longer benefits from his assistance as it did during his lifetime, Rav Galai said the opposite is true: A tzaddik who accomplished great things in this world can continue working on behalf of others from Shomayim with even greater strength.

“The Steipler told me a fundamental principle, and it is clear to me that it is true,” Rav Galai related. “What a tzaddik did here, they do there in Shomayim with far greater strength. I asked him about someone who was connected to a certain rov, and the rov passed away, and that person felt that his world had gone dark.”

Rav Galai then recounted the Steipler’s emphatic response.

“The Steipler told me: Tell him that I said that what they did here, they do there with far greater strength. It is nothing. Tell him, do you understand Yiddish? You understand Hebrew. He repeated it ten times. Tell him that I said that what they did here, they do there with far greater strength. If here he worried about him, he will worry about him. If here he davened for him, he will daven for him.”

Rav Galai connected the Steipler’s words directly to Rav Pam’s legacy and the future of Shuvu, saying there should be no concern over whether the Torah and kiruv work he championed will continue.

“You ask how the Torah and kiruv will continue after Rav Pam passed away? We already heard what the Ponovezher Rov said after the Holocaust, that we have no concern about how the Torah will continue. Hakadosh Boruch Hu promised, ‘For it will not be forgotten from the mouths of his descendants and his descendants’ descendants.’ The only question is who will merit to be part of it.”

Rav Galai then spoke with humility about his own involvement in Shuvu’s work.

“I am nothing. I am only a shamash. I truly try to do whatever I can to help kiruv. It is clear that the Torah will continue, Shuvu will continue, the talmidim will continue. The only question is who will merit to be part of it.”

He concluded by addressing the message that should be conveyed to those who support Shuvu financially, saying that while people sometimes approach him seeking guarantees of success or blessing, the true promise comes from Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

“People come to me so that I should promise. Right? I don’t know how to promise, but Hakadosh Boruch Hu promises. If you make Mine happy, I will make yours happy. There is no greater joy for Hakadosh Boruch Hu than when another one of His children is brought to say Shema Yisrael.”

{Matzav.com}

A former Meta safety researcher delivered damaging testimony Wednesday in a landmark federal trial, accusing Mark Zuckerberg and his company of deliberately avoiding child-safety problems on Facebook and Instagram when addressing them could threaten profits.

Arturo Béjar, who worked on safety issues at Meta for years and later emerged as a prominent critic of the company, told jurors in California federal court that Zuckerberg wielded enormous authority as CEO but failed to adequately confront the dangers the platforms posed to young users.

“You just cannot trust Mark Zuckerberg with kids,” Béjar said on the witness stand.

Béjar became the first witness presented by a coalition of 29 state attorneys general suing Meta. The states allege that the company intentionally designed addictive features that contributed to anxiety, depression and even suicide among teenagers, while also improperly collecting children’s personal information without parental permission.

The attorneys general are asking the court to order significant changes to Meta’s platforms and impose substantial financial penalties for the alleged violations. Attorneys representing the states have suggested damages could approach $200 billion, while Meta has argued that the potential figure under the plaintiffs’ calculations could climb as high as $1.4 trillion.

Béjar headed a safety-oriented team at Meta between 2009 and 2015 before returning as a consultant from 2019 through 2021. During his testimony, he accused Zuckerberg of creating a misleading public picture of how seriously the company treated the welfare of young users.

“I felt that he created a false and misleading impression of Facebook’s commitment to young people,” said Béjar, who estimated that he spoke to Zuckerberg about safety issues at least 100 times during his tenure.

According to Béjar, Meta possessed technology capable of identifying underage users who circumvented the company’s safeguards, but effectively adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach because younger users represented valuable future customers.

“Where the youngest kids are is where the users are going to be in the future,” Béjar said.

Béjar previously played a major role as a witness in separate litigation brought by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez. In that case, he described the disturbing experiences of his daughter after she joined Instagram at age 16, including receiving sexually explicit messages and “unsolicited penis pictures.”

During cross-examination Wednesday, a Meta attorney questioned Béjar about his decision to permit his daughter to use Instagram. Béjar acknowledged that he had not anticipated the extent of the dangers she would encounter on the platform.

“I kept an eye on how distressing it was for her,” Béjar said. “She got a good following, at the price of harm.”

The multistate trial is expected to continue for approximately six weeks and is set to feature testimony from some of Meta’s most prominent executives. Zuckerberg and Instagram chief Adam Mosseri are both expected to take the witness stand.

Meta has denied the allegations against it and maintains that the attorneys general are pursuing financial penalties far beyond what the case could legitimately justify.

During opening arguments Tuesday, Meta attorney Paul Schmidt defended the company’s record, arguing that Zuckerberg and other executives have repeatedly worked to make Facebook and Instagram safer for children. He pointed to measures including parental supervision features and tools allowing limits to be placed on the amount of time young people spend on social media.

President Trump is set to sit down for an interview with Michael Cohen, his onetime personal attorney and fixer who later became one of his fiercest critics, in a remarkable public reunion following years of bitter legal and personal warfare between the two men.

Cohen, who acknowledged arranging payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election over an alleged affair with Trump, said the interview comes after he and the president recently put their long-running feud behind them.

After years of publicly attacking one another following their dramatic falling-out, Cohen revealed earlier this summer that he and Trump had reconciled and were once again on better terms.

Segments of Cohen’s interview with Trump are scheduled to be broadcast Thursday night on New York’s 77 WABC radio, Cohen said in a social media post. Additional portions are expected to air Sunday during a program Cohen is hosting on the station.

MS NOW had earlier reported that Trump would appear with Cohen for an episode of the attorney’s podcast. Cohen disputed that account in his post, saying the interview was instead conducted for the WABC radio program.

The Hill said it contacted the White House seeking confirmation that Trump would participate in the interview.

Cohen disclosed last month that his relationship with Trump had changed dramatically after years of hostility, explaining that an unexpected message from a mutual friend helped open the door to ending their feud.

“Out of nowhere, when I was sitting with my wife at a restaurant, my phone buzzed and it was a text from that friend who expressed to me the president’s genuine empathy for the hell that I was being dragged through … I deeply appreciated that text,” Cohen told John Catsimatidis and Rita Cosby on WABC’s “Cats & Cosby” radio talk show.

Cohen said the message prompted him to reach out directly to Trump in hopes of finally bringing their years-long battle to a close.

“I actually texted the president. I thanked him. Expressed my sincere hope that this long, exhausting feud between the two of us could finally end,” Cohen added.

{Matzav.com}

The United States has crossed a historic and troubling fiscal threshold, with the national debt climbing above $40 trillion as federal borrowing continues to grow and long-term projections point to an increasingly severe financial burden.

Treasury Department figures released Wednesday show that total outstanding public debt reached $40.047 trillion on Tuesday, jumping from $39.987 trillion just one day earlier.

Debt held by the public, which excludes certain obligations the government owes to itself, now totals approximately $32.3 trillion. That figure is equal to about 101% of the nation’s gross domestic product, a debt burden not seen at this scale since the World War II era. In 2001, following four straight years of federal budget surpluses, publicly held debt stood at only 31.5% of GDP.

The climb to $40 trillion did not happen suddenly. It is the product of more than two decades of major wars, tax reductions, economic downturns and massive federal spending programs.

The federal government’s finances began deteriorating in the early 2000s following the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a series of tax cuts that reduced federal revenue.

Another major blow came with the 2007-09 recession, which caused tax receipts to plunge while Washington responded with expensive economic stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing the financial system and reviving the economy.

Federal borrowing accelerated dramatically again during the COVID-19 pandemic, when trillions of dollars were spent on direct relief payments, assistance for businesses and numerous other programs designed to prevent a broader economic collapse.

Long-term demographic changes have added another layer of pressure. An aging U.S. population has driven spending higher for Social Security and Medicare, while federal revenues have consistently failed to grow enough to cover the government’s overall expenditures.

Current forecasts indicate that the gap between spending and revenue is likely to become substantially larger in the decades ahead.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that debt held by the public will climb to 120% of GDP by 2036. That would eclipse the previous record of 106% reached in 1946 following World War II.

The longer-term outlook is even more dramatic. Assuming current laws remain largely in place, the CBO projects publicly held federal debt could soar to approximately 175% of GDP by 2056.

Meanwhile, annual federal deficits are hovering around 6% of GDP — levels that historically have been associated with major wars or serious recessions. The difference today is that Washington is running deficits of that magnitude without the country being in the midst of a major economic downturn.

Despite the enormous borrowing, investors have not abandoned the market for U.S. government debt. Treasury securities continue to be regarded around the world as highly liquid, relatively safe assets, allowing the federal government to keep financing its obligations without producing an immediate fiscal crisis.

The mounting expense of paying interest on that debt, however, is becoming a growing concern for the federal budget.

According to CBO projections, annual net interest costs will increase from 3.3% of GDP in 2026 to 4.6% by 2036. By 2056, interest payments are projected to consume 6.9% of GDP, meaning the government would spend more simply servicing its debt than it would spend individually on either Social Security or Medicare.

As interest payments consume a larger portion of federal revenue, lawmakers will have less flexibility to finance other government priorities. The problem can also become self-reinforcing, since interest obligations themselves cannot simply be eliminated when Congress attempts to reduce spending.

Finding sufficiently large spending reductions presents its own political obstacles.

A substantial share of federal expenditures goes toward Social Security, Medicare and other benefits paid directly to individuals. Other government expenses — including federal employees, government facilities and law enforcement — account for a much smaller portion of total federal spending, limiting how much deficit reduction can realistically be achieved without addressing the largest programs.

With the national debt now beyond $40 trillion and projected to continue rising, policymakers face increasingly consequential options: collect more revenue through higher taxes, reduce benefits and government spending, or keep adding to a debt load that the Congressional Budget Office has warned cannot continue growing indefinitely.

{Matzav.com}