Edward Lotterman

Words like “ignorant,” “clueless,” “stupid,” “idiotic, “inane,” “moronic,” or “asinine” are harsh. They should not be used in reasoned argumentation, simply because they undermine the credibility of the person making the reasoned argument — the person who presumably is not any of those things.

But there are occasions when the ignorance professed is so enormous, and has such potential impact, that it has to be called out, even with an appeal to the emotions.

Such an occasion occurred this past week, when President Donald Trump’s Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, speaking about the point in 2033 when the Old Age and Survivors trust fund runs out of money, said, “Eight years is a long time away.”

Sorry, but “asinine” or any of the other foregoing adjectives fits here. One need not apologize.

Social Security Commissioners usually are actuaries, statisticians or economists. (Search for “SSA Social Security Commissioners” to read bios of over 40 of them). But, as a highly paid CEO who, together with his wife, gave somewhere north of a million dollars to Trump’s 2024 campaign, following large amounts for the losing 2020 one, Bisignano meets Trump’s criteria to run an agency with a complex task — namely a rich white guy who likes and supports Donald Trump, especially with money.

Yet Bisignano’s ignorance of the job he was evidently qualified for was evident in remarks he made soon after being named:

“I’m like, ‘Well, what am I gonna do?’ So I’m Googling ‘Social Security.’ That’s one of my great skills, I’m one of the great Googlers on the East Coast. …  I’m like, ‘What the heck’s the commissioner of Social Security?’ ”

So why is it “asinine” to say that eight years is ample time to fix the program? One, because it betrays a blithe ignorance of the scope and complex causes of the problem, which are generations in the making. And two, because waiting makes closing the gap harder every day, and makes the measures to do so increasingly unfair to those still working.

If this trust fund were to hit zero right now, we would suddenly need an additional $210 billion a year from payroll withholdings. This would be the opposite of a tax cut. And that would be only for old age and survivor’s benefits, not disability benefits nor Medicare. The increase in FICA paid by employer and employee combined, leaving Medicare aside, would need to rise from 12.4% of earnings to 14.8%. That would be a wrenching adjustment to household and business incomes if other changes to funding are not made — and such changes also will be hard. Fast-forward eight years from right now, and those percentages only go up; and the solutions only become harder.

If, in 2010, Bisignano had said, “23 years is a long time away” he still would have been unrealistically optimistic. Peter G. Peterson, the corporate CEO who served as Ronald Reagan’s Treasury secretary before heading Lehman Brothers and co-founding the Blackstone investment fund, started expounding on these issues 30 years ago.

Laurence Kotlikoff, a distinguished economist at Boston University, has devoted his career as a public finance expert to these intergenerational funding challenges. He produced a coherent array of possible policy responses that largely have been ignored for political reasons.

With these articulate voices unheard in the wilderness of partisan politics, we sail blithely toward a mega-crisis. To understand how we got in this jam, consider history.

First, the Social Security Act of 1935 has been among the most consequential government actions in U.S. history, on par with the Northwest Ordinance, the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill. It shaped who we are as a country today. More specifically, it not only reduced poverty more than any other measure, but also made labor markets more efficient. Simply put, reducing the risks of abject poverty allows workers to make better career choices.

Secondly, it is not, as some uninformed people (in power) allege, a glorified Ponzi scheme that relies on younger age cohorts unfairly being duped into paying for the benefits of older ones. Yes, FICA paid in by current workers now does go to current retirees. However, that only mimics and simplifies what happens in any “real” economy without money. Working age people always have had to produce goods and services to meet the needs of both young and old. That has been true since prehistory.

Of course, the aged have to have some social, economic or legal claim on having their needs met. That may come from kinship, ownership of assets or government programs that effect such transfers. As long as each generation must support others at some point in their lives, the system can be just.

So it is entirely possible to have a social insurance system in which the value paid in by the average person while working equals the value of benefits received after retiring. While this is ideal if the population is constant or changing at a constant rate, it is more difficult when birth rates zig and zag. These fluctuations are the fundamental source of our current problems.

Everyone knows of the baby boom, the sharp post-World War II uptick in birth rates from 1946 through 1964. These drove a population of 170 million in the late 1950s to some 340 million today. These babies are now retiring, and have been for years, and are demanding benefits from a system they paid into while working. Post-boom generations haven’t kept pace, so new workers paying into the system not only can’t afford to continue funding the benefits, they’ll get shorted when it’s their turn.

There were additional factors. One was the dearth of births during the Great Depression and its collapse in immigration. We are correct in thinking of the 1930s as the period of hardship in question, but that is incomplete. Farming had already gone into a slump in the early 1920s at a time when over a third of the U.S. population lived on farms. So a dearth preceded the boom. And other low-birth rates have followed.

In the economically troubled period from 1973-1988, the number of children per woman fell below population replacement levels, although immigration did boost growth. But rates are falling sharply again. With 2.07 children per woman, 2007 was the last time we were above replacement levels. Now, after a dip to about 1.6 per mother in 2020, during COVID, we are at 1.8.

If this trend persists, it will shrink the population. But there is a kicker, and it’s specific to Trump administration policies. This national fertility average is as high as it is because immigrant women and their daughters born here have more children than women whose families have been here longer. If we deport these people, thus limiting the fertility rates to women whose families have been here two generations or more, the overall population would drop even more quickly. In this same vein, consider also the mass deportation of immigrant workers who also pay FICA. What happens when they aren’t here?

The funding retirements of 76 million retiring boomers has been a challenge for half a century and new trends make this also a challenge as younger workers retire, as they soon will be doing en masse.

A responsible administration and Congress saw that 40 years ago. An excellent blue-ribbon commission recommended sensible changes that were largely adopted in 1984. These included higher FICA rates and an increase in the full retirement age from age 65 to 67 phased in over years. Benefits for survivors were cut sharply, essentially covering them through high school instead of nearly through college.

Another initiative, for the trust fund to build up a substantial balance while baby boomers were still paying in, has largely failed. Ongoing irresponsibility by Congress, which used the fund to hide even larger deficits in the general Treasury accounts, has been the problem.

The rapid concentration of wealth to a relative few over the last 25 years now poses even greater challenges. Planners in 1984 worked with 85% of all household earnings being subject to FICA, and assumed this would continue. Soon, however, high proportions of increases in income went to the richest fraction of the population. Nearly all was not in the form of “earned income,” wages and salaries subject to FICA. More often it was investment income, subject to capital gains, but not funding Social Security. And almost all was over the limit subject to FICA anyway.

The fact that the richest 10% of households now enjoy 50% of total consumption expenditures illustrates this change. People who make money spend money; people who don’t pay taxes.

In the 44 years since I first taught econ, the U.S. has gone from a nation with the most equal income distribution among wealthy democracies to now being the one with the most unequal. So when we look at the Social Security trust fund and ask, “where did the money go?” this is partly the answer.

So this is a brief primer for Bisignano on the challenge he faces now, not eight years from now. So what will our ignorant commissioner do with the information? That must be left to another column.

Related Articles

Real World Economics: How bad is it going to get?

Real World Economics: When Fed’s mandates are in conflict

Real World Economics: Farmers always on the cutting edge

Real World Economics: Federal Reserve follies continue

Real World Economics: A primer on money, banking and the Fed

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at stpaul@edlotterman.com.

By Sally French, NerdWallet

The first cruise I ever took — the Sun Princess in October 2024 — happened to collide with Hurricane Milton. Leave it to me to take my inaugural sailing during peak storm season.

Honestly, I wasn’t even sure I’d make it to the ship at all. My flight from San Francisco to Fort Lauderdale was almost rerouted; the gate agent warned us we might land in Miami instead. In the grand scheme of things, a 45-minute Uber ride didn’t sound catastrophic — but when you’re starting your first ever cruise, every unknown feels oversized.

Luckily, my flight did land at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport as planned. The cruise itself? Not so simple. The Sun Princess didn’t actually set sail as scheduled. We left a full day late, as the port was closed to new ships coming in.

For me, that meant an unexpected bonus day in Florida. But for the folks still onboard from the previous sailing, “extra day at sea” might have meant missed flights and an extra missed day of work, plus a scramble to rebook everything once they finally returned to shore.

That’s when I learned: Cruising during hurricane season isn’t necessarily a dealbreaker, but it is a gamble. Here’s what you should know before booking a cruise during hurricane season.

When is hurricane season?

The Atlantic hurricane season typically runs from June 1 through Nov. 30, peaking in September and October, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico see the brunt of it, though storms have been known to hit in other months, too.

It’s a popular time to sail, as Caribbean cruises during these months also tend to be the cheapest.

And if you have a cruise planned this fall, you should be prepared. NOAA’s outlook for the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season predicts a 50% chance of an above-normal season, meaning it’s more likely we see major hurricanes than usual.

“This updated hurricane outlook serves as a call to action to prepare now, in advance, rather than delay until a warning is issued,” said Acting NOAA Administrator Laura Grimm in a prepared statement.

What really happens when there’s a storm?

If you’re cruising and a storm is in the forecast, it’s likely you won’t even encounter it.

“Those viral videos of ships rocking in the middle of a storm certainly look scary, but cruise lines take extraordinary measures to avoid sailing directly into hurricanes,” said Jason Margulies, a personal injury lawyer who focuses on maritime and cruise ship injury law, in an email with NerdWallet.

He added that often those videos go viral because they are uncommon — not because they are the norm.

Rerouting is common

Typically, the biggest danger to cruise passengers during a hurricane is that their itinerary doesn’t typically go as planned. I departed a day later, and other passengers stayed on board a day longer.

In other cases, you could skip a port you thought you were going to cruise to, or end up at a different port that wasn’t on the original itinerary.

Related Articles

Live that (fabulous) lake life in Lake Geneva, Wis., a playground for wealthy Chicagoans

$40,000 vacations inspire finance pros to become travel agents

$600M renovation nears completion at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

The Kahlo family opens the doors of their house, inviting visitors to Frida’s beloved basement

Colorado’s best mountain towns for live music fans

“Ships are tracking weather constantly, and if there is any chance of crossing paths with a hurricane, the captain will change course long before it gets that close,” Margulies says.

For example, it’s common that you might swap an Eastern Caribbean route for a Western one.

Margulies said captains consider factors such as how far the ship can go on its current fuel, whether a port has space to take a big ship at short notice, and how swiftly customs and docking arrangements can be handled in determining which port to go to instead.

Ships are designed to keep you safe

Captains have sophisticated forecasts and the ability to outrun storms. Cruise ships can move faster than a hurricane in most cases. Though they rarely go that fast (it is a cruise, after all), cruises can typically reach speeds of more than 30 miles per hour. Hurricanes, meanwhile, typically only reach forward speeds of 15-20 miles per hour.

But if you do end up in rough waters, Margulies says you are safe.

“Modern ships are built with stabilizers and navigation systems designed to handle rough conditions,” he says. Stabilizers are fins or rotors that are used to cut down on the rolling and pitching that might make passengers feel seasick.

Your cruise might look a little different

That said, some aspects of your cruise may change. Things that could blow away or cause injury, such as deck chairs and outdoor decorations, are often put away or locked down.

Schedule changes will be communicated

You might hear announcements about delays or itinerary changes over the loudspeaker. Alerts on smartphone apps, in-room TVs and even text messages are also becoming more common.

Opt in to alerts, and make sure you can actually receive them. For example, if you’re on an international trip where you didn’t purchase an international phone plan, ensure you can get alerts the other way, such as by downloading your cruise line’s app.

How to prepare if you cruise during hurricane season

My crash-course takeaways from sailing through Hurricane Milton:

Arrive early

If your cruise departs Saturday, don’t plan to land Friday night. Come in at least a day early (two if you can). If my flight had been rerouted or canceled altogether, that cushion would have been my safety net.

Build in flexibility

If you can, don’t book a flight home the same day your ship docks. That could have been rough for passengers on the cruise before mine, who had to spend an extra day at sea. Their flights would’ve taken off without them if they intended to leave that day.

Travel insurance is worth it

If you don’t have that kind of flexibility, you might also buy travel insurance. There are usually caveats, like travel insurance typically won’t cover hurricane-related issues once the hurricane has already been named.

The storm only added a day of beach time to my trip (lucky me). But had it meant a delay or missed connection, then insurance could have covered the cost of rebooking another flight.

Use the right credit card

Now speaking of travel insurance, you may not need to pay for it. Certain credit cards include built-in travel insurance that can reimburse you if weather delays or cancels parts of your trip. Check the terms on your credit card or call the issuer to confirm the coverage terms.

Book your airfare through the cruise line, too

Many major cruise lines, including Royal Caribbean International and Norwegian Cruise Line, offer the option to reserve airfare through the cruise line directly. In the event of a delay like this, the cruise line will help reroute you (even if you missed your flight).

Consider “safer” destinations

If you’d rather not roll the dice, think about booking a cruise to other destinations, such as Alaska, the Mediterranean or even Southern Caribbean islands like Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao, which rarely see hurricanes. Of course, no destination is immune to weather challenges, but these are generally less risky.

Sometimes, it works out

On my sailing, I lucked out with the weather. It poured in Nassau the day before I arrived, but by the time the Sun Princess pulled into port, the skies were bright blue. Had the storm lingered one more day, my one and only port stop would have been a soggy washout.

Even onboard, the rain forced adjustments. I didn’t get much use out of the pool deck, as it rained on one of my two days at sea.

But here’s the saving grace: Cruise ships have everything you need. I spent my time bouncing between live entertainment, bars, lounges and late-night snacks. Did I get the stereotypical Caribbean cruise experience of endless sunshine, poolside lounging and umbrella drinks? Not really. Did I ever feel bored? Not once.

Prepare for unpredictability

My first cruise with Princess Cruises didn’t go as planned, but I wasn’t surprised. Hurricane season comes with unpredictability baked in.

Sometimes you’ll get an extra day on a Florida beach. Sometimes you’ll be at sea longer than expected, frantically rebooking a missed flight. And sometimes, like me, you’ll luck out and watch the storm clouds clear just in time for your port day.

If you sail during hurricane season, pack flexibility alongside your swimsuit. Because the only thing guaranteed is that the weather won’t always cooperate — but the adventure will still be there, rain or shine.

Sally French writes for NerdWallet. Email: sfrench@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @SAFmedia.

The article Cruising During Hurricane Season? Here’s What I Wish I Knew originally appeared on NerdWallet.

By LEANNE ITALIE, AP Lifestyles Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — Wellness advice seems to be everywhere these days, but change can be hard. How do you start a journey toward better health that you can stick with, and not be overwhelmed?

Related Articles

$40,000 vacations inspire finance pros to become travel agents

One Tech Tip: How to move your music library to another streaming platform

The Kahlo family opens the doors of their house, inviting visitors to Frida’s beloved basement

Colorado’s best mountain towns for live music fans

‘Dead of Winter’ review: Harsh environment helps elevate kidnapping drama

Among the experts’ advice: Start with a little and it can turn into something big. Be consistent. Try to find people who can help you stay the course.

Define ‘wellness’ and start small

Kristina Schuldt is a family medicine physician and wellness director for about 14,000 employees of the Mayo Clinic Health System.

“Wellness means different things to people. There’s fitness and physical wellness, but there’s also mental wellness, financial wellness, spiritual wellness,” she said. “A person should define what their wellness goal is.”

Don’t take on the entire wellness universe at once, she warned. Start with small steps.

Increase water intake, for example, using a bottle or jug big enough to hold a day’s worth, with markings on the side to let you see how much you drink. If quitting smoking is the goal, cut down by one cigarette until it feels comfortable, then do the same thing again and again.

That goes for getting your steps in, too. If you’re not used to long walks, start with a few blocks and increase by two every week.

In the kitchen, experiment with healthy foods to find out which ones you like. Will it be pumpkin but not kale? Flaxseed but not cranberries? Don’t force yourself to eat foods you don’t like. At the table, eat slowly. Savor each bite and try to recognize when you’re nearly full.

“Go with what we call the low-hanging fruit at first,” Schuldt said of first steps overall.

Find people to support you

At her heaviest, Jenny Watson weighed 420 pounds. In January 2023, she said, “I was at a point where I was like, I can’t do this anymore. I’m tired. My body hurts. I had hit rock bottom.”

Watson, a 36-year-old mom of two and a hairstylist in suburban Dallas, tried a lot of fitness programs before finding one that stuck. While she’s still not at her ideal weight, the pounds she lost have stayed off. She works out, including weightlifting, and has started eating more whole foods, cutting processed foods from her diet.

Her biggest supporter, she said, is her husband, who has made changes in solidarity. She used to be a night owl, but both of them now head to bed at 10 p.m.

Dominique Debroux prepares a meal at home in Cliffside Park, N.J., on Sept. 11, 2025. (Dominique Debroux via AP)

Put a pin in the ‘eat, pray, love’ fantasy

Andrea Leigh Rogers, a fitness trainer who has worked with celebrities like Gisele Bündchen and Nicole Scherzinger and has written a new book, “Small Moves, Big Life,” urges people trying to achieve a healthier lifestyle: Don’t fall for whatever wellness trend is making the rounds.

“There’s the game of comparison. I don’t look like her. I can’t do that if I don’t look like her. Other barriers also feel heavy, like I have to pay $50 to do one class,” she said.

You don’t. What you do need is to be consistent. That might mean mindful breathing, followed by a few minutes of stretching and a 10-minute workout in the morning. Or it could be a new approach to breakfast, or a rethink on the crush of daily responsibilities.

“We all have 10 minutes,” Rogers said. A good plan, she added, follows the acronym FEEL: “It’s fast, it’s enjoyable, it’s effective and there’s longevity.”

James Keppel poses for a selfie along the Cache la Poudre River in Fort Collins, Colo., on Sept. 14, 2025. (James Keppel via AP)

Sometimes, a reboot is needed

James Keppel, in Fort Collins, Colorado, nearly lost his liver to cirrhosis. That was in 2019. His first order of business was to get sober, which he did through rehab. Then, he worked on becoming healthier overall by making a series of nutritional and other life changes.

But a series of devastating developments, including a split with his wife and the premature loss of a close family member, left him floored. He sold his design company and turned to his sister for help, moving in with her and her family in Pennsylvania for nearly a year. He had to turn off the go-go rhythm of his old life.

“I slept a whole lot. I watched a lot of TV. I read a lot of books. I stayed off my computer. I didn’t take many phone calls,” he said. “I just slowly kind of ramped back up. You have to give yourself the space to get better.”

By Erika Bolstad, Stateline.org

States are scrambling for the money to fill potholes, plow roads, maintain bridges and pay bus drivers as they confront inflation- and tariff-driven cost increases and declining gas tax revenues.

States also face uncertain federal funding as the Trump administration reduces the size of government and zeroes out some Biden-era transportation programs. As the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act expires next year and Congress considers its next transportation funding bill, cities are clamoring for the federal government to bypass states and give cities a larger share of federal infrastructure money distributed by formula.

Drivers will have to pay higher vehicle registration fees and gas taxes to make up for the shortfalls. Long-planned construction projects and safety improvements will be delayed. And bus riders may see fewer routes and longer wait times.

The chaos in a pair of state legislatures on either side of the country illustrates the dire state of highways and transit systems – and might foretell a bumpy road ahead.

In Oregon, nearly 500 transportation employees, about 10% of the department’s workforce, might lose their jobs as state lawmakers consider a transportation funding bill in a special legislative session. The political balance is so delicate that lawmakers have delayed a vote on a $4.3 billion transportation package for more than two weeks while a Democratic state senator recovers from surgery; his vote is necessary to pass the funding measure, a tax increase that requires a supermajority. The Senate is now expected to vote on Sept. 29.

And in Pennsylvania, a budget impasse over transit funding between the state’s Republican-dominated Senate and Democrat-led House continues. Philadelphia’s transit system, SEPTA, has said it will reverse deep cuts that threatened a near-shutdown of the buses and trains in one of the country’s largest transit systems.

The move, approved by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, allows the transit agency to shift $394 million from capital funding to operational expenses for the next two years.

Shapiro said he acted after he learned there was a 63% increase in late arrivals to Philadelphia schools when the service cuts began, according to the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

“It was just clear to me that is not something we can allow to continue,” Shapiro said at a news conference.

Pandemic-era funding ends

Pennsylvania and other states are confronting the end of pandemic-era federal funding that kept transit systems afloat. The so-called fiscal cliff threatens to bring about fare hikes and service cuts to bus and rail systems in both big cities and rural America in the coming years. To address the shortfalls, many states are, like SEPTA, shifting money that was earmarked for capital investment toward operating expenses.

“It’s financial gymnastics,” said Joe Kane, a fellow at the left-leaning Brookings Institution who studies transportation issues. “We fundamentally as a country have a challenge in reliably and durably having a revenue source to pay for these improvements across the country. It’s put even more pressure on states and localities to cobble together the resources — however and wherever they can — to make up for some of those gaps.”

The funding crisis has been particularly drastic for the country’s transit systems, said Corrigan Salerno, a policy manager at Transportation for America, an advocacy organization for safe transit. Ridership hasn’t fully recovered from pandemic-era declines, he said, meaning that transit agencies aren’t collecting as many fares as they did before 2020. The cost of labor, parts, software and fuel to maintain and operate transit systems has exceeded inflation, too.

Without high-quality or frequent-enough service, buses and trains are unable to attract riders, he said. Service cuts and fare hikes can make the system less attractive to riders, as well as bring in less money from riders.

“And that’s really the nature of the fiscal cliff and the death spiral that transit agencies are really trying so desperately to avoid,” Salerno said. “Because once they have to make these service cuts to square their budgets, people are going to stop riding some of these systems.”

Chicago; San Francisco; Seattle; Tucson, Arizona, and the state of Rhode Island have all faced transit funding gaps in recent months, Salerno said. In North Carolina, voters will consider a ballot measure in November to increase a local sales tax to support transit and road improvements in Charlotte, the state’s biggest city. In California, local transit agencies are seeking temporary operating loans from the state.

Eliminating bus routes

In Oregon, lawmakers have been at work on a transportation bill for several years, but the funding crisis came to a head after the legislature failed to pass a new spending plan before the end of the regular legislative session in June.

The state’s Department of Transportation faced an immediate $300 million shortfall in the two-year budget cycle that began July 1. The transit agency for the Portland area, Tri-Met, announced it would eliminate up to eight bus lines as well as reduce the frequency of service on other lines as soon as November.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, announced this summer that the state would lay off 483 transportation workers and close a dozen maintenance facilities. Among those who may lose their jobs are programmers who maintain software for Driver & Motor Vehicle Services, and maintenance workers who stripe roads, clear brush, and clean up graffiti and debris.

Kotek pushed back the layoffs after House lawmakers passed a new funding plan during a special session that began in September. But if the Senate fails to approve the measure, the layoffs are scheduled for Oct. 15.

The transportation package would raise the state gas tax by six cents a gallon, increase vehicle title and registration fees, and temporarily double a statewide payroll tax for transit from 0.1% to 0.2%, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

The legislation would allow the payroll tax to sunset in 2028, a move that critics warn will force the state, once again, to confront how to avoid cuts to bus service. It also requires electric vehicle drivers to pay a mileage fee to support road maintenance, a move that could dampen EV sales, but that captures some of the gas tax revenue lost to the transition to electric cars.

Without new funding in Oregon, local road departments will continue to face impossible choices that lead to reduced services and delayed implementation of safety projects, said Lamar Wise, the political director for Oregon AFSCME, the union representing 850 road workers, engineers and surveyors in the state. Failure to increase taxes and fees means asking fewer workers “to do more with less,” putting their safety and the driving public at risk, Wise told a legislative committee in August, as it considered the transportation package.

“It is about keeping our roads safe and ensuring that the public can count on reliable transportation in every corner of the state,” Wise said.

In Portland, the state’s largest city, it’s impossible to absorb more cuts to service, Mayor Keith Wilson told the same panel. If lawmakers don’t pass a spending plan, the city will likely lose 50 transportation staffers who repair streetlights, upgrade traffic signals and manage construction projects. The city bureau has faced cuts each of the past seven years, Wilson said.

“If you drive down the streets of Portland, or ride on a bus or a bike, the roads under your tires are crumbling,” he said.

But Jake Seavert, a county commissioner in Union County, a rural county of 26,000 in Eastern Oregon, told lawmakers that his constituents object to the spending plan, particularly the increase in fuel taxes and registration fees. The hike in annual registration fees places an undue burden on businesses and rural families who require multiple vehicles, he testified.

Oregon’s Department of Transportation must look for efficiencies, Seavert said, a nod to the Trump administration’s lacerating cuts to federal jobs and spending.

“Do more with less,” Seavert said.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.