Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: What lies ahead?

Your Take: What lies ahead?

This week we asked for your take on our future prospects. Do you think we are heading in a better or worse direction for 2023? And what are your indicators? Many respondents used economic projections to back up their views. Others shared more dystopian outlooks. One writer invited me down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. I declined. And a few, like me, were more optimistic, even if the next few years are hard. Here’s a sampling of responses, edited for length and clarity.

Economic stagnation, at best, a recession likely. Populists and progressives animating their respective parties leading to ongoing gridlock. China's economic woes leading to unrest within China and China's diminishment in projecting world power. Russia's economic implosion leading to chaos within Russia. -Sheldon Kay


I am very cautiously optimistic for 2023 and hopeful that the positive signs I see after that become reality with accelerating improvement. There is a very real threat to our continued existence primarily due to the excessive demands we make on the carrying capacity of this planet. Our experience with Covid showed we can respond quickly and effectively but that response was undermined by fear and greed. Our response to climate change is finally approaching a level that may save us from the worst outcomes but that remains very much in doubt. The introduction of renewable energy technologies has finally reached a level that is having a real market impact and we are near the inflection point that signals exponential increase due to the competitive advantage that renewables have over fossil fuels. Survival is possible but by no means assured. -Joe Bachofen

Racism, xenophobia, gun fanatics, anti-education, climate denial and the idea that America should be the world's purveyor of democracy have been festering problems for 50 or more years. My predictions are that 1) each of the problems I mentioned previously will continue to get worse; 2) politicians will continue to promote and support a system of government based on money and driven by an overwhelming desire to be reelected; 3) more and more people will be turned off by politics as they will see the government as not "of the people or by the people" but by people who do not identify with the common person; 4) leaders will emerge who (unlike Trump) will actually try to organize to make real changes; 5) at some point Americans will see that we are facing common problems that we need to deal with together. -John Persico

Here are my main hopes for 2023. I think we and the media will continue to focus on negative aspects of our situation (e.g., near deadlock in Congress and a continuation of negative campaigning and mutual dislike, including sometimes outright hate expressed and occasionally practiced between polar opposites). Indicators would be 1) occasional outbreaks of reporting on positive things that have always been present among our peoples of the nation and world; 2) people deciding that they can self tithe their incomes in some ways that make themselves feel better about sharing what little or massive amount of wealth they have attained; self-tithing would show decreases in the rate of expansion of the gaps in income and wealth between the bottom 25 percent and the top 25 percent and the bottom 5 percent and the top 0.1 percent; 3) each of us share our education and resources and money with others in ways we personally deem important and help those in our national and international families of humans find basic happiness more often than we are now. -Joe Healy

It's hard to make plans when you have to take into account the rights available to you where you live, where you might move and what that means for your quality of life. 2023 will be a plateau year for me as several things were completed this year, despite the world situation. I will be planning how to move forward from them to the next step. Some are work (I am at NASA and the SLS rocket was one of my projects. Yay! It LAUNCHED! *grin*), and some are personal (I would like to build a house). I can see far enough ahead to believe that I will grow from these things. I cannot see close enough to know how this next year will impact those plans. I am scared that someone will decide they know my needs better than me and try to force me, via policy or social pressures, into something I don't want and don't need. But I have to face that if it happens, and work like I am still fully free. -Karen Murphy

The United States’ founding principles are/were based upon local control, enforcing liberty and freedom; not democracy, capitalism and special-interests seeking the strength and force of government to sway civil society. We haven't gotten it right yet but, I’m looking forward to continuing to move functionally further down a mostly correct path. Homosapiens fallibility works hard to sway and slow progress. We all must think deeply, and ponder our true underlying motivations and own up to our genuine intentions. -John “Ric” Curtis

We have studied the economy with great interest and it seems that with every new projection of 2023 we have considered a new twist of politics and economics occurs. No doubt 2023 appears as a time of recession, yet we still see economic upticks. The successive increases in interest rates suggest that the Fed fears inflation or a growing economy. But we consider inflation a sign of prosperity and much to be desired rather than deflation or recession. Deflation reflects a downturn, the last thing we need. No doubt President Joe Biden has been a source of stability with calm resolve. We have been confused by his low job ratings because he has been stable and has introduced many positive economic enhancements. What our nation needs is stability and wise policy decisions. Neither Republican candidates provide much hope for progress. We see that more new and progressive policies have been implemented in the last three years than in many decades. Stability and progress is what America continues to enjoy and need for the future in 2023. -Ben Boothe Sr.

I was in my youth more optimistic than I am today. With age the disappointments pile up, and youth's enthusiasm about democracy becomes frustration. I am not very hopeful about good outcomes either for our own governance or for international relations, either in 2023 or for the longer haul. No international leaders, except perhaps United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, have been willing to slow their economies to reduce consumption, manufacture and transportation, which are needed to slow or reverse global warming. Global warming will thus accelerate and leave us all eventually with no good solutions, leading to migrations, wars and disease. -Paul Hillibo

President Joe Biden reflected on the past year in an op-ed written for Yahoo News.

Americans have been through a tough few years, but I am optimistic about our country’s economic prospects. Americans’ resilience has helped us recover from the economic crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic, families are finally getting more breathing room, and my economic plan is making the United States a powerhouse for innovation and manufacturing once again.

Read the full article here: https://news.yahoo.com/opinion-end-of-year-op-ed-f...


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less