Despite claims by President Donald Trump his internal polls show him winning everywhere in 2020 and that the American people may ask him to stay beyond eight years in violation of the Constitution, the Mueller Report and impeachment discussions may be hurting his approval rating.

In a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken June 10-11, surveying 1,119 Americans, in four out of five demographic categories 60% or more polled reported the country was headed in the wrong direction. The survey included 412 Democratic registered voters, 331 Republican registered voters, and 192 independents. 

Top Dems Lead Trump in Head-To-Head Matchups, Poll Finds; Democratic Primary Race Narrows as Biden Goes Flat https://t.co/4M40IlwKrZ #2020Election

— Quinnipiac University Poll (@QuinnipiacPoll) June 11, 2019

Only among registered Republican voters did a majority (68%) think the country was on the right track. Among all adults surveyed, 60% said the country was on the wrong path. Among registered voters, 61% were unhappy with the direction of the country. Seventy-one percent of independent voters disfavored the country’s direction, and among Democratic voters, dissatisfaction was 86%.

When asked if they approved or disapproved of the way Trump was handling his job as president, 57% of all adults said no, 58% of registered voters said no, 65% of independent voters said no, and 91% of registered Democrats said no. Again, only among registered Republicans, did the president receive favorable numbers: 13% disapproved of the president, while 86% approved of him.

After a Quinnipiac University poll last week showed the president losing the 2020 election to five Democrats in one-on-one contests if held today, Trump lashed out and said he could see himself staying in office beyond 2024.

…..news is that at the end of 6 years, after America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT), both of these horrible papers will quickly go out of business & be forever gone!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2019

The poll also found healthcare to be the top issue among respondents, followed by immigration, the economy in general, terrorism and unemployment. Since 2012, immigration concern was below 10% until 2017 when it spiked to about 15%, then dropped below 10% again, until another spike in early 2018. At present, just over 15% polled see immigration as the most important problem facing the U.S.

Similarly, healthcare had a high of 15% in mid-2013 as the most important issue facing the U.S., and then dropped below 10% until 2017 when it spiked to 25%. It has since continued to be the most important issue facing the country for 15% or more Americans. At present, it is the most important issue for just under 20% of Americans.

“The Hills: New Beginnings” fans have a reason to be suspicious. The original series was revealed to be largely fake in the later seasons, and now fans are wondering if the revival series is scripted. The answer is not exactly straightforward. 

There might not be physical scripts, but it seems MTV still makes the cast reenact anything the cameras missed (which is fairly typical for reality TV shows). The show apparently didn’t premiere in the spring because reshoots were needed.

“It’s more basically that they filmed all the stuff and then probably in the editing they were missing certain conversations that happened off camera,” Port told AOL. “They just needed to fill in certain blanks.”

In a New York Times feature, it was noted that MTV tries to avoid reshoots. They isolate cast members when they’re not on camera so that nothing big happens off-screen. Of course, they can’t constantly isolate the cast, especially on days when they aren’t filming.

Showrunner Lauren Weber, however, assured the Times that she doesn’t script the show. “She never tells them what to say unless it’s something they want to say, then she just helps them get there,” the article noted.

“The Hills: New Beginnings” is bringing back a lot of the original cast and their spouses. However, they’re throwing in a few new faces, some of whom are actors. “The O.C.” star Mischa Barton and newcomer Brandon Thomas Lee are two of the new additions with acting backgrounds.

The returning cast includes Spencer Pratt, Heidi Montag, Audrina Patridge, Stephanie Pratt, Brody Jenner, Justin “Bobby” Boscia, Frankie Delgado and Jason Wahler.

“The Hills: New Beginnings” premieres Monday, June 24 at 10 p.m. EDT on MTV. 

“The Hills: New Beginnings” underwent reshoots. The cast is pictured on June 11, 2019 in New York City. From left: Spencer Pratt, Heidi Pratt, Audrina Patridge, Justin Bobby Brescia, Jen Delgado, Frankie Delgado, Ashley Wahler, Jason Wahler and Whitney Port. photo: Rob Kim/Getty images for Buzzfeed News

Taylor Swift is bringing in some friends to help with her latest music video. “You Need to Calm Down,” which premieres Monday, will include a star-studded cast, most of whom identify as members of the LGBTQ community.

The singer announced on Twitter that she had “asked a few friends to be in the You Need To Calm Down video” and posted a 15-second video that had over 20 different celebrities listed.

The listed includes Ellen DeGeneres, Ryan Reynolds, Laverne Cox, Dexter Mayfield, Karamo Brown, Antoni Porowski, Ciara, RuPaul, Jonathan Van Ness, Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Justin Mikita, Bobby Berk, Tan France, Billy Porter, Adam Lambert, Todrick Hall, Hayley Kiyoko, Chester Lockhart, Adam Rippon and Hannah Hart.

The clip teased that these aren’t the only stars appearing as well.

Swift released “You Need to Calm Down” on Thursday. The second single from her Aug. 23 album “Lover” seemed to address not only her own haters but also those who are homophobic. The song references protesters at pride parades, GLAAD and includes the lyrics, “And control your urges to scream about all the people you hate/’Cause shade never made anybody less gay.”

Swift has been increasingly vocal about her support for the LGBTQ community recently. In April, she donated $113,000 to the Tennessee Equality Project.

Earlier this month, Swift urged her fans to sign a petition she created in support of the Equality Act. The bill would include sexual orientation and gender identity in civil rights laws, protecting them from discrimination in employment, housing, educational institutions and elsewhere. Rather than linking to pre-orders for her new album, Swift’s links on social media profiles lead to the Change.org petition, which has over 187,000 signatures.

“You Need to Calm Down” star Jesse Tyler Ferguson appeared at Stonewall Inn with Swift over the weekend. The historic New York bar was the site of the Stonewall riots in 1969. Swift played “Shake It Off” alongside Ferguson on Friday.

Taylor Swift is pictured on Jan. 6, 2019 in Beverly Hills, california. photo: Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty images for InStyle

After some analysts, and even President Donald Trump, dismissed Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the White House, the Massachusetts Senator has surged in polls, and in Nevada and california last week is showing second only to former Vice President Joe Biden.

Warren’s campaign almost was a non-starter after comments of her Native American heritage and a DNA test showed she was 1/64th and 1/1024th related to native communities became a talking point for Trump, who called her “Pocahontas.”

Elizabeth Warren Downplays Rise in Polls: `It's Way Too Early' https://t.co/Nup5Gp4k8E

— Bloomberg (@business) June 15, 2019

But after a June poll by Quinnipiac University showed her virtually neck-and-neck with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., within the margin of error, and polls last week in Nevada and California showed her leapfrogging Sanders into second place, Warren’s campaign appears on the move and interest in her ideas is growing.

Still, Warren faces an uphill battle, primarily because she has eschewed big corporate donors and has focused on a grassroots campaign that hasn’t been nearly as successful as Sanders’. Campaign reports show she has raised about $6 million in the first quarter of the year, while Biden, Sanders and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke eclipsed that amount within 24 hours of announcing candidacy. 

However, Warren stands apart from the field in one key way: she has a detailed plan for just about everything, from free college tuition and student loan forgiveness to Big Tech regulation and Pentagon contracting.

Since entering the race for the Democratic nomination, Warren has issued about 20 detailed plans. Most of her competitors have issued less than a half-dozen, and frontrunner Biden has only issued two — one of which came under fire for its similarity to others without attribution.

With so many plans on the table, Warren also has drawn criticism from centrists and conservatives alike, who say her ideas would hurt business and the economy due to increased regulation and taxation. However, like Sanders in the 2016 campaign, by making so many bold proposals, Warren is framing much of the debate in the Democratic primary and, again like Sanders in 2016, those positions appear to be advancing her in polls.

Wall Street is not happy about Elizabeth Warren’s rise in the polls. Could she become president? https://t.co/vx90dSOkuP

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) June 16, 2019

Robert Reich, former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton, told the New York Times last week, “It’s rare, at this stage of a presidential campaign, somebody distinguishes themselves by the boldness and detail of their policies.”

Reich added, “She is asking the biggest questions that exist, and this is: How do you make a free market work? How do you make capitalism actually work for the many rather than the few?”

As you’re probably well aware, our nation’s most successful social program, Social Security, is set to face what’s arguably its biggest hurdle since inception more than eight decades ago.

Every year, the Social Security Board of Trustees releases a report detailing the short-term (10-year) and long-term (75-year) outlook for the program. Since 1985, this annual report has indicated that there wouldn’t be enough revenue generated over the long term to support the existing payout schedule. Or, to put things in easier-to-understand terms, a benefit cut would be needed at some point before the next 75 years are up in order to ensure the program’s solvency.

Now, to be clear, Social Security isn’t going bankrupt. It’s simply not designed to, with the majority of its annually collected revenue coming from the payroll tax on earned income ($885 billion in 2019) and the taxation of Social Security benefits ($35 billion in 2019). These recurring sources of income for the program ensure that it can never go belly up, meaning it will be there for you when you retire, whether that’s 10 years from now or 50 years down the road.

But the $13.9 trillion in cash that the Trustees report estimates Social Security is short between 2035 (its estimated date of asset reserve depletion) and 2093 (the 75-year mark from the issuance of the latest report) is no laughing matter. If additional revenue isn’t raised, or expenditure cuts made, retired workers could see their monthly payouts decline by a not-so-subtle 23%. And since more than three out of five retired workers receiving a benefit rely on this payout for at least half of their income, a 23% reduction could cause serious issues.

Now that you have the backdrop behind Social Security’s imminent cash crunch, let’s pivot to the most popular solution to resolve this crisis among the public: raising the payroll tax earnings cap.

The most popular Social Security fix: Tax the rich

In 2019, all earned income (salary and wages) between $0.01 and $132,900 is subject to the 12.4% payroll tax. Mind you, only the self-employed and self-proprietors are paying this 12.4%, with employees of businesses splitting their payroll tax obligation with their employer (6.2% each). However, earned income above $132,900 is completely exempt from the payroll tax.

In 2016, the Social Security Administration notes that $1.2 trillion in earned income escaped the payroll tax this way, thereby denying the program close to $150 billion in taxable revenue. The amount of earned income exempt from the payroll tax has risen considerably over the past three decades from a little over $300 billion to the noted $1.2 trillion.

The solution would simply be to increase the earnings cap, thereby capturing more of this earned income via the payroll tax. Some proposals from lawmakers have suggested implementing a doughnut hole between the cap of $132,900 and an arbitrary figure, such as $250,000 or $400,000, where earned income would remain exempt from the payroll tax. Once above this arbitrary level, though, the payroll tax would be reinstated to supply added revenue to the program.

The reason the idea of raising the payroll tax cap is so popular among the general public is because it would have no impact on most workers. Since more than nine out of 10 workers is already paying into the program on every dollar they earn (i.e., won’t make $132,900 in 2019), raising the cap would only affect a single-digit percentage of well-to-do and rich workers.

But does the most popular Social Security fix hold water? Let’s take a closer look at a solid argument in favor of taxing the rich to save Social Security, as well as a valid argument why taxing the rich isn’t the appropriate solution.

Here’s why taxing the rich is a really good idea

There are, ultimately, a number of reasons the American public prefers the idea of placing the onus of Social Security’s fix on the wealthy.

For example, there’s the idea that since the rich are unlikely to rely on Social Security income at all when they retire, they should be taxed at a higher rate to help support the lower-income folk who are unable to support themselves financially. And, as noted, since this fix wouldn’t impact more than nine out of 10 workers, it has a lot of support.

But neither of these factors touches on the real reason why taxing the rich makes sense. The fact is it has little do with the wealthy “paying their fair share” and everything to do with resolving Social Security’s imminent cash shortfall before 2035, which is when its $2.9 trillion in asset reserves are expected to run out.

The core Republican proposal of reducing program outlays by gradually increasing the full retirement age from a peak of 67 to perhaps as high as age 70 has a fundamental flaw. Specifically, it’s going to take decades before any savings are realized by the program. That’s because increasing the full retirement age protects current retirees and those very near retirement, meaning it’s those folks set to retire 20, 30, or 40 years from now that would see a reduction in lifetime benefits. In short, the GOP proposal to reduce expenditures works, but not quickly enough to stop benefits from being cut.

If the payroll tax cap were raised, the additional revenue generated would halt the need for a benefit cut for {presumably) a couple of decades. Whereas the Republican plan slow-steps the fix, the Democrat proposal of raising additional revenue by taxing the rich gets right to the point.

And here’s why taxing the rich doesn’t make sense

However, there’s another side to this coin.

As with the idea above, there are plenty of ancillary reasons not to tax the rich that make sense, but they aren’t the primary reasons not to do so. For instance, a couple of reasons I’ve previously suggested as to why the wealthy aren’t being taxed more include the lack of support from Republicans in the Senate for such a measure, as well as the possibility that the wealthy may reduce political campaign donations in response to such a move.

Yet, neither of these ideas gets to the crux of the matter: that the rich are already paying their fair share into the program.

Even if the well-to-do don’t plan to rely on Social Security income during retirement, one fundamental fact that most folks overlook is that the payroll tax cap exists because a cap also exists on the amount a beneficiary can be paid monthly at full retirement age. In 2019, this figure is $2,861 a month. If a person averaged $150,000 a year in lifetime earnings or $50 million a year, the most they’d be able to receive each month in 2019 at full retirement age is $2,861 a month. The payroll tax cap makes sense because the cap on benefits exists, thereby validating the notion that the rich are, indeed, paying their fair share into Social Security.

My personal belief is that an eventual solution to Social Security’s cash shortfall will involve an increase to the payroll tax, and possibly the earnings cap, but as you can see, this is far from a cut-and-dried issue.

This article originally appeared in the Motley Fool. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 

Summer is no longer a dead season for TV fans. Plenty of networks have new shows premiering in the warm months to come, and fans will want to mark premiere dates on their calendars.

Though summer doesn’t technically start for another week, plenty of summer TV shows begin airing a little early. The premieres start Sunday when Zendaya stars in “Euphoria,” HBO’s gritty teen drama that tackles addiction and sex.

For something a little lighter, try ABC’s “Grand Hotel,” premiering after “The Bachelorette” on Monday. The sexy drama is based on a telenovela and is set in a family-owned hotel in Miami. The wealthy family has plenty of drama, but the staff also get into plenty of trouble.

Comedy fans can look forward to “Broad City” alum Arturo Castro’s new sketch comedy series “Alternatino with Arturo Castro” on Comedy Central. Meanwhile, reality fans get to see “The Hills: New Beginnings” bring back some fan favorite stars along with a few new faces.

See all the new summer TV shows and premiere dates below (all times are EDT):

The “Veronica Mars” revival, “Euphoria” and “Grand Hotel” are all starting this summer. photo: Hulu/Michael Desmond; HBO; ABC/Byron Cohen

Sunday, June 16

“City on a Hill” Showtime, 9 p.m.

“Euphoria” HBO, 9 p.m.

Monday, June 17

“Das Boot” Hulu

“Grand Hotel” ABC, 10 p.m.

Tuesday, June 18

“Ambitions” OWN, 10 p.m.

“Alternatino with Arturo Castro” Comedy Central, 10:30 p.m.

Thursday, June 20

“Holy Moly” ABC, 8 p.m.

“Family Food Fight” ABC, 9 p.m.

“Spin the Wheel” Fox, 9 p.m.

“Reef Break” ABC, 10 p.m.

Friday, June 21

“Mr. Iglesias” Netflix

Monday, June 24

“Years and Years” HBO, 9 p.m.

“The Hills: New Beginnings” MTV, 10 p.m.

Sunday, June 30

“The Rook” Starz, 8 p.m.

“What Just Happened??!” Fox, 9:30 p.m.

Monday, July 1

“Cupcake Championship” Food, 9 p.m.

Tuesday, July 2

“Love Island” CBS, 8 p.m.

“Bring The Funny” NBC, 10 p.m.

“The Disappearance” WGN, 10 p.m.

Wednesday, July 3

“Florida Girls” Pop, 10 p.m.

“Marrying Millions” Lifetime, 10 p.m.

Wednesday, July 17

“Pearson” USA, 10 p.m.

Wednesday, July 24

“South Side” Comedy Central, 10:30 p.m.

Thursday, July 25

“Chasing the Cure” TNT/TBS, 8 p.m.

Friday, July 26

“The Boys” Amazon Prime

“Veronica Mars” Hulu

Sunday, July 28

“Pennyworth” Epix, 9 p.m.

Wednesday, July 31

“Four Weddings and a Funeral” Hulu

“No One Saw a Thing” Sundance, 8 p.m.

“Sherman’s Showcase” IFC, 10 p.m.

Sunday, Aug. 4

“Flip It Like Disick” E!, 10 p.m.

Wednesday, Aug. 7

“BH90210” Fox, 9 p.m.

Friday, Aug. 30

“The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance” Netflix