Social Security Taxes to Decrease for Some Seniors

A retired teacher in Ohio with a modest pension and Social Security benefits could save $800 annually under a quiet provision tucked into the recently passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill. This targeted tax break for middle-income seniors deserves attention, both for what it accomplishes and what it represents.

Currently, Social Security benefits become taxable once a retiree's 'combined income,' Social Security plus other income, exceeds $25,000 for singles or $32,000 for couples. This creates a tax trap: a retiree who withdraws an extra $1,000 from their 401(k) might see $850 of their Social Security benefits become taxable too, effectively facing tax on $1,850 of income from a $1,000 withdrawal.

While some Republicans pushed to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security altogether, the final bill didn’t go nearly that far. Instead, it creates a new deduction of $6,000 for single seniors and $12,000 for married couples, aimed at Americans over the age of 65. The White House says this will effectively eliminate taxes on Social Security income for 88% of seniors. That number may be optimistic, but the basic design makes sense, and is largely accurate.

The poorest seniors already pay no federal tax on their benefits, and Social Security benefits are not taxable at their income level. So, this new deduction isn’t for them; it’s aimed at those who worked, saved modestly, and now face taxes on their benefits because they have a small pension, or modest 401(k) withdrawals, or some investment income. For these people, the tax system can be a trap, where every dollar withdrawn from savings makes more of their Social Security taxable. This bill offers real relief to those caught in that squeeze.

The deduction phases out for singles earning over $75,000 and couples over $150,000, which is a reasonable cap. It keeps the benefit focused where it arguably belongs, on working- and middle-class retirees, rather than extending it to the wealthy or the very poor, who either don’t need it or already receive full exclusion. Importantly, the deduction stacks on top of the standard deduction, simplifying taxes rather than complicating them.

Also worth noting: The bill's age restriction creates an unfortunate gap: disabled Americans under 65 receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits face the same tax trap as seniors but receive no relief. A 45-year-old disabled individual with modest retirement savings receives no deduction, whereas a 65-year-old with the same income does. This omission likely reflects political calculation rather than policy logic.

Like many tax changes, this one “sunsets” in 2028, a transparent budget gimmick designed to minimize its official cost. However, once a benefit like this is in place, it becomes difficult to remove. It will almost certainly be renewed, if not made permanent. 

This measure falls far short of eliminating all income tax on Social Security income as President Trump had promised. In this case, Congress played its role in addressing his concern without incurring unsustainable debt. A complete repeal of Social Security taxation would cost far more, roughly $1.4 trillion over 10 years, versus approximately $66 billion for this deduction. This provision is a targeted and modest modification to the law to help middle-class seniors while keeping the impact on the deficit relatively low.

This brings me to an uncomfortable truth: as someone who may benefit from this provision, I find myself torn between appreciating targeted relief for middle-class retirees and worrying about our broader fiscal trajectory. The federal deficit is no abstraction; it’s a growing threat. This measure may be modest, but it reflects a dangerous pattern. These kinds of “vote sweeteners” are how legislation gets passed—pile up enough goodies for enough constituencies, and you’ve got the votes. But taken together, they’re not harmless. Combine this with other giveaways like the expanded State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, expected to cost $200 billion and disproportionately benefiting the wealthy in high-tax blue states, and it’s clear we’re trading long-term stability for short-term politics.

This Social Security tax break, like many others, is aimed at seniors, a reliable voting bloc politicians love to please. But the debt it adds to will not be paid by seniors. Our children and grandchildren will pay it. I would willingly forego this benefit if it meant Congress would finally act with the seriousness our fiscal reality demands. The real test isn't whether this particular provision makes sense—it does. The test is whether we can summon the political will to address the larger fiscal challenges while still protecting those who need help most.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Medicare, Medicaid, and the Death of Nuance

Reform, by its nature, is disruptive. It makes winners and losers. It closes loopholes, redirects resources, and imposes structure where ambiguity once offered comfort. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, recently passed by the Senate, is focused on reform. The name is not satirical; it is the actual title of the legislation. One controversial component is the restructuring of key provisions of Medicare and Medicaid. Those changes are celebrated in some quarters as a long-overdue return to discipline and intent, and denounced in others as heartless, cruel, and ideologically driven. Predictably, the debate has broken along familiar, hardened lines.

But perhaps more troubling than the policy changes themselves is the way Americans now process such changes, or more accurately, how they are processed for us. People no longer approach legislation with curiosity or critical thought. Most don't read the bills, track the debates, or weigh the trade-offs. Instead, they wait for the narrative to be handed down by their side of the ideological aisle, often in the form of weaponized slogans, social media posts, and pre-packaged outrage.

For progressives, particularly those following influencers like Occupy Democrats or politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders, the reaction was instantaneous and entirely predictable: this was a giveaway to the rich, an attack on immigrants, and a move to “strip health care from vulnerable people to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.” It’s a refrain so overused that it no longer seeks to persuade; it simply activates. Senator Sanders described it as “a death sentence for low-income and working-class people, pushed through to give tax breaks to billionaires who don’t need them.”

None of these statements addresses the actual provisions of the bill. They do not acknowledge that Medicare is facing insolvency within a decade. They do not acknowledge that Medicaid was originally designed as a temporary safety net, not an open-ended entitlement that grows with every economic downturn and political negotiation. But the purpose of these messages isn’t analysis—it’s mobilization. These influencers aren’t prioritizing public understanding; they’re leveraging outrage for clicks, shares, and donations. Their message may be rooted in sincere concern, but it often favors emotional mobilization over informed judgment.

To be fair, the Right does this too. There are commentators and social media voices who reduce every policy decision to fairness for “the hardworking taxpayer,” dismissing anyone harmed by changes as lazy, undeserving, or, increasingly, foreign. If someone loses coverage under new eligibility rules, well, that's their problem. The conservative side can be quick to dehumanize, to turn real people into data points or warnings about socialism. Rhetoric about “parasites on the system” or “open border freeloaders” is just as manipulative as progressive alarmism—it simply targets a different tribe.

The truth, of course, is more complicated. The bill focuses on making it harder for certain non-citizens, including some who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years, to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. It removes eligibility for people in temporary or humanitarian immigration statuses. It penalizes states that expand Medicaid beyond federally accepted definitions.

It is essential to understand that many of the affected immigrants are here legally, as asylum seekers, refugees, or under humanitarian parole. But during the Biden administration, a historic lack of enforcement and a permissive use of emergency immigration tools led to widespread abuse of these designations. Hundreds of thousands entered not through structured, deliberate vetting, but through overwhelmed border infrastructure and loosely applied legal categories. While these individuals are technically “lawfully present,” the process that granted that status often sidestepped the spirit of the law. The resulting strain on local hospitals, schools, and housing, particularly in small towns, has made these reforms not only a fiscal necessity but a question of social stability. The reforms in this bill aim to reassert the distinction between legality achieved through structured immigration and legality resulting from bureaucratic dysfunction.

American citizens are not the focus of the changes; however, the bill reintroduces work requirements for non-disabled adults. It also introduces new documentation standards that could delay or disrupt coverage even for some U.S. citizens, particularly the elderly, the homeless, or those without access to vital records. Some of these hardships are unintentional. Others are by design. The policy goal is not just to save money but to tighten eligibility, increase scrutiny, and discourage the casual or opportunistic expansion of benefit programs beyond their original purpose.

That means, inevitably, some citizens will struggle, be disenrolled, or denied service in error, beyond the intention of the reforms. Processes must be established to minimize these types of errors and to create an appeal process that provides a vehicle for correction.

The question we ought to be asking as a nation is not whether the policy is perfect or perfectly fair. It’s whether we can still handle the truth that some pain is the price of discipline, and whether we have the civic maturity to hold two competing truths at once: that reform is needed, and that it will cause hardship. Because if we can’t hold both ideas, if we can only see policy through the filter of team loyalty or partisan fear, then we are no longer capable of self-governance. We’re just another culture of propaganda consumers with color-coded jerseys.

Real liberty takes effort. It demands that we read past the slogans, that we listen even when it’s uncomfortable, and that we acknowledge trade-offs. It asks us to take seriously both the obligation to fix what’s broken and the human cost of doing so. This new bill isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a rare instance of Washington recognizing that sustainability comes at a price.

Are we still a country willing to shoulder the burden of necessary change, even when it’s hard to do so fairly? The answer matters, not just for the future of Medicare and Medicaid, but for the integrity of democratic self-government.

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

A Turning Point in the Middle East

As a Naval Intelligence Officer, the Middle East was a central focus of my military service. I’ve walked the ground there and felt the weight of its history and heartbreak. I witnessed the aftermath of the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines. I’ve traveled through Israel and the West Bank, observing the fragile layers of conflict and coexistence firsthand, and visited Israeli naval ships. During the first Persian Gulf War, I served in the Pentagon, tasked with developing strategic targets and assessing bomb damage against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

I have never been as optimistic about the future of the Middle East as I am now.

That may sound surprising, even naive to some, especially given the current headlines. But I believe we are witnessing a moment of realignment—one that could finally weaken the forces of extremism and unlock a more prosperous and peaceful future for the region. Much of this hope stems from the disruption of conventional, often failed, foreign policy approaches. For that, I give significant credit to President Donald Trump. Whatever one thinks of him, it was his willingness to break with the stale orthodoxy of Middle East policy that created the conditions for the Abraham Accords—and for what might now follow.

President Donald J. Trump, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain Dr. Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Foreign Affairs for the United Arab Emirates Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyani sign the Abraham Accords Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2020, on the South Lawn of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Tia Dufour)

No Kings - or Just the Wrong King?

In 2014, I wrote a post titled “Less like a president than a king,” warning of the long, unchecked expansion of executive power in the United States. I made that case during the Obama administration, when the Supreme Court unanimously rebuked the president for exceeding his constitutional authority. Back then, there was little appetite on the political left to hear concerns about presidential overreach, because their party held power.

Fast forward to today, and protests have erupted under the banner “No Kings.” Predictably concentrated in deep-blue cities, these demonstrations have been organized or supported by a who's  who of progressive activist groups: Indivisible, MoveOn, the ACLU, unions, and others. 

The message, at first glance, is a noble one—opposition to authoritarian rule. Many participants are sincere and good people, and I do not seek to offend them or diminish their participation in a cherished First Amendment liberty to protest. I even admire them for engaging. However, these protests are not about tyranny; they are about partisanship. They are not a spontaneous defense of liberty, but an organized campaign effort. 

The slogan “No Kings” is not a call for constitutional restraint—it’s a campaign slogan, just like “Move On.” “Resist” and “Black Lives Matter,” formulated by powerful organizers who have developed networks, communications strategies, funding pipelines, and local chapters precisely to mobilize around virtually any progressive cause at short notice. 

The irony, of course, is that the expansion of executive power has been building for more than a century. It accelerated dramatically under the Obama administration, continued under Trump, and intensified even further under Joe Biden. Presidents from both parties have tested these boundaries. Richard Nixon's abuses of power gave birth to the term "imperial presidency" itself, and George W. Bush’s post-9/11 expansions of surveillance and wartime authority marked another significant leap. Each new president inherits the tools left behind by the previous one and builds upon them. Each new party in power forgets the warnings it once issued when the other party held the White House.

From Ivy Halls: The Collapse of Moral Clarity and Truth on College Campuses

At recent graduation ceremonies at prestigious universities such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, NYU, UC Berkeley, and George Washington University, political activism continued to dominate as students disrupted these events. Kafias were worn, Palestinian flags were flown, diplomas were burned, walkouts occurred, and chants praised those who agreed with them or condemned those who sought moderation.

Some student commencement speakers took to the podium to “go off script,” using their moment in the spotlight to accuse Israel of genocide and demand a “free Palestine.” These comments were not fringe outbursts; they were largely met with applause and praise from audiences that included faculty, students, and families. In the most elite institutions of the Western world, these chants of “resistance” have become a new moral currency.

The actions and words of students reveal something far more troubling than youthful ignorance: they expose a profound and deliberate disconnect from history, morality, and truth. These students, graduates of some of the most prestigious universities in America, seem completely unaware of efforts to establish a Palestinian state over the past 75 years. Each time, Palestinian leadership has rejected peace in favor of violence or political intransigence.

Yitzak Rabin, Bill Clinton, Yassir Arafat - White House, 1993

Small-Town Boomers: A Nostalgic Look Back at Randolph, Massachusetts

I recently published a new book, “Small-Town Boomers: A Nostalgic Look Back at Randolph, Massachusetts,” and it is now available on Amazon.  Readers may find it interesting. Although it is specifically about Baby Boomers growing up in Randolph, any nostalgic Baby Boomer may find they have much in common with the experience. Click any of the links here to purchase on Amazon. Here is a raw link as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DTF92SJS

SUMMARY:  Randolph, a small town about twelve miles south of Boston, Massachusetts, experienced a population explosion during the baby boom era after World War II, nearly tripling its size. To accommodate the influx of families, builders constructed hundreds of small homes that quickly filled with children. Now, those children look back nostalgically on their upbringing.

This book captures the essence of growing up in a small town during this unique period. It offers an informal history emphasizing the childhood experiences of boomers and the small-town communities that brought them a tremendous sense of independence and belonging.

The book is intended to provide future generations with a description of childhood and community that increasingly seems foreign to them. By communicating our experiences, we may offer them a different path in a world where children feel increasingly isolated and alone.

Each chapter ends with a blank, lined page that invites readers to personalize the book with their thoughts and memories, creating a family heirloom to be treasured.

I hope readers will enjoy the book.  

****

SHARING: Please consider sharing these blog posts via social media or email if you find them interesting by providing a link to either https://www.libertytakeseffort.com or https://libertytakeseffort.substack.com
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.

Searching for Leadership - The Trump-Harris Debate

The debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris was another disappointment for those seeking true leadership capable of inspiring and uniting the American people. It served as a reminder of how much importance we’ve placed on the presidency while simultaneously lowering the standard for candidates. Both Trump and Harris once again demonstrated mediocrity. Trump stuck to his predictable pattern of exaggeration without substance, while Harris excelled at playing her role, but lacked meaningful content.

Trump was, as expected, unable to deviate from his usual script. His inability to adapt or take advice was clear. This debate marked his second chance to "seal the deal," the first being his meandering 90-minute speech at the Republican National Convention. Those who had hoped for a change or an awakening after his near-death experience were let down.