Latest news with #H.R.1
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Senate proposes big change to Social Security, SALT income tax deduction
The Senate Finance Committee this week unveiled its proposed tax provisions for inclusion in the budget reconciliation bill currently under consideration in Congress. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, H.R. 1, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in May. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The Senate is now working on its own version, which must meet specific requirements to qualify for reconciliation. This would allow it to bypass the filibuster and pass with a simple majority vote, according to a report by the Journal of Accountancy. The goal? Passage by July 4. Among the provisions for individuals in the Senate version of the bill that are different from the House version, several stand out. Harold Mendoza The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would permanently establish the expanded standard deduction amounts enacted under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Starting in tax year 2026, the standard deduction would be set at $16,000 for single filers, $24,000 for heads of household, and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly, with future adjustments for inflation. Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock The Senate proposal also includes a temporary tax break for older Americans: a $6,000 deduction for individuals age 65 and older. The House version offered only a $4,000 "senior bonus" deduction. The Senate's senior deduction would begin to phase out at a modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers, and would apply from 2025 through 2028. Tax expert Ted Sarenski notes that whether the additional senior deduction is $4,000 or $6,000, for joint filers with both spouses over 65, this would result in a standard deduction of $38,000 or $42,000 – amounts that exceed what the majority of seniors who currently itemize could reach, especially with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction capped at $10,000. Related: How the IRS taxes Social Security income in retirement However, Sarenski warns of potential challenges ahead: "The bigger issue: come 2028 when this bonus is set to disappear, there will be tremendous squawking about a $8,000 or $12,000 drop in the standard deduction like we see now with proposed Medicaid cutbacks today which are merely trying to put Medicaid back where it was before COVID." Under current law, the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT) is capped at $10,000. The original House bill proposed raising that cap to $30,000, but a manager's amendment increased it further – to $40,000 per household ($20,000 for married individuals filing separately), effective in 2025. Related: SALT income tax deduction takes critical step forward The Senate version, by contrast, would keep the SALT deduction cap at $10,000 and make that limit permanent. It also includes provisions to prevent taxpayers from using workaround strategies to bypass the cap. However, this provision remains a point of negotiation between the chambers. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), have signaled that the $10,000 cap is a negotiating position rather than a final offer, suggesting a compromise could land somewhere between the House and Senate proposals. Still, members of the House SALT Caucus, including Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), are holding firm on the $40,000 cap. Lawler called the Senate proposal "DEAD ON ARRIVAL" and reiterated, "$40,000 is the deal – I will not accept a penny less." Sarenski emphasized that the SALT provision "is a concern for residents of high tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, etc." He anticipates that if the Senate moves to keep the cap at $10,000, "it may not pass the House," and expects "there will be a compromise somewhere in the middle of those two figures." More Social Security: Jean Chatzky sends strong message on 401(k)s, Social SecurityDave Ramsey's blunt advice regarding Social Security and 401(k)sSuze Orman addresses growing Social Security problem Harold Eisenberg, the founder and CEO of WealthTec, takes a more critical view of the overall legislation, describing the One Big Beautiful Bill as "just not sound tax policy on many levels" with "too much politics in this proposed legislation." He characterizes the temporary senior tax break as "gimmicky," though notes that this very quality "means some form of it likely passes." On the SALT deduction, Eisenberg argues that the limitation "is targeted primarily at taxpayers in Blue states, so on its face is discriminatory." The prospects for these tax changes remain uncertain, with the legislative path forward depending heavily on House dynamics. "The chances of any of these changes rests with the house," said Sarenski. "The senators can pass whatever they agree on. The house is the issue with Republicans not voting in tandem." Tax professional George Papadopoulos takes a more cautious approach to predicting outcomes, noting his long experience with the legislative process: "I have been around for a while and long enough to not really get into pending legislation matters. I know in general what is on the table and stay away from guessing what will actually be signed into law. When we actually have a law then it is time to get into analyzing it." Related: These are the most tax-friendly states if you work in retirement Despite his general reluctance to speculate, Papadopoulos does offer some measured predictions based on political realities. He expects the $10,000 SALT deduction cap will increase "but not more than doubling," suggesting a final figure well below the House's proposed $40,000 limit. He also anticipates "some form of senior deduction" will ultimately be included, driven by the political influence of older voters as "that voting block is so large." However, he expects the income thresholds for phasing out the senior deduction may be set higher than currently proposed. Eisenberg, despite his self-described role as a "federal tax policy cynic," also weighs in on the political dynamics. He believes that with the narrow House Republican majority, "keeping the SALT limitation at $10K would likely kill the bill in the house" because "too many Republicans in 'swing districts' in the Blue states are depending on raising that cap." Reflecting on the complex nature of tax legislation, Papadopoulos said: "Whoever said negotiating tax legislation is like making sausage was right." Got questions about retirement, email What is a pledged asset line? The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Advocates call on Sens. Lee, Curtis, to revive payments to downwinders in ‘big, beautiful' bill
Steve Erickson, an advocate for downwinders, speaks to reporters about a possible RECA expansion in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (Kyle Dunphey/Utah News Dispatch) It's been one year since Congress allowed the program offering payments to downwinders to expire. Now, advocates are hoping the Senate will revive the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, as part of the 'big, beautiful' bill. That includes Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who told reporters on Tuesday he's 'hoping something can get done.' RECA had been in place since 1990, offering payments to uranium workers and downwinders, people who contracted cancer from above-ground nuclear tests. For years it was criticized for being too narrow — despite studies suggesting the entire West was blanketed by dangerous levels of radiation during nuclear tests, downwinders in just 10 counties in Utah, as well as a handful of counties in Nevada and Arizona, were covered. And since the program expired last June, Congress has been unable to bring RECA back, stymied by spending concerns. Although the Senate passed a bill sponsored by Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley that would greatly expand the program, it hasn't been considered in the House. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX During a press conference in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, advocates called on Utah Republican Sens. John Curtis and Mike Lee to get behind an amendment to Congress' budget bill similar to what Hawley has proposed. 'There's a real possibility that a RECA reauthorization and expansion could be included in H.R.1,' said Steve Erickson, a longtime advocate for downwinders. 'But this will need the support of Utah's congressional delegation, especially the full-throated support from Senator Lee and Senator Curtis. Without their support, the prospects for RECA are much diminished.' Neither Curtis or Lee's offices responded to a request for comment. Dozens of Utah lawmakers call on Congress to resume payments to downwinders When asked about RECA during his monthly PBS news conference on Tuesday, Cox said he's hopeful Congress will find a way to bring the program back during budget reconciliation. Cox, along with a coalition of 41 Utah lawmakers, have previously supported efforts to expand the program, specifically Hawley's bill. Hawley's bill would expand the program to cover all of Utah and a handful of other Western states that weren't previously included in RECA, while extending coverage to communities around St. Louis and territories in the Pacific that were impacted by nuclear weapons testing development. 'We'll continue to express support for that,' Cox said on Tuesday. 'The repercussions of that above-ground nuclear testing in Utah are very long lasting and many of us had family members that have been impacted. So I think it's still important. Utah is not alone but Utah was significantly impacted.' However, the governor noted there haven't been any new developments in his talks with the congressional delegation. People who submitted their claims before the deadline last summer can still receive payments — but there's no option for downwinders who were just recently diagnosed with cancer, or didn't know about the program. '(We) continue to receive emails and phone calls from affected community members here in Utah who have received cancer diagnosis, asking where to apply and what to do,' said Carmen Valdez, a senior policy associate for the Health Environment Alliance of Utah. 'It's really discouraging to say that the program is expired and they can no longer apply, but they can contact their delegation about it.' RECA has always had bipartisan support. Originally sponsored by late Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, both Democrats and Republicans have since advocated for its expansion. That includes Sens. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M. and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who have lobbied with Hawley to expand the program. 'This is not a partisan play by any means,' said Erickson. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Fact Check: What we know about 'Big Beautiful Bill' banning states from regulating AI for 10 years
Claim: H.R. 1, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, contains a provision that bans states from regulating artificial intelligence for 10 years. Rating: Context: If the "Big Beautiful Bill" becomes law, states and local governments would be unable to enforce any regulations on AI systems and models involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. There are exceptions for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems. A budget bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025, allegedly bans all 50 states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, according to claims shared on social media in early June. As the Senate prepared to take up H.R. 1, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, people online expressed their concerns about the alleged AI-related provisions in the legislation. For example, one X user shared this claim (archived) on June 2, 2025: Similar claims also appeared in Facebook (archived) posts (archived) around the same time. Snopes reviewed the text of H.R. 1 and found a provision that bans states from regulating AI systems "entered into interstate commerce" for 10 years in Section 43201 of the bill. Paragraph (c) in that section outlines the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation: (1) In general. – Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce. In other words, if the bill becomes law, states and local governments will be blocked from enforcing any regulations on AI systems and models that are involved in interstate commerce for 10 years. The phrase "interstate commerce" broadly refers to business or activity that crosses state lines. But in the context of this bill, the distinction likely doesn't mean much. As a result, we've rated the claim mostly true. The Supreme Court has said activities that happen entirely within one state can still count as interstate commerce if they have a significant enough impact on the national economy, as David Brody, a civil rights and technology legal expert, explained in an article for Tech Policy Press published on May 27, 2025. That means many AI systems would likely be subject to the federal rules if H.R. 1 passes. However, there are some exceptions to the 10-year moratorium on states' AI regulation — notably for any laws or regulations that facilitate the rollout, operations or adoption of AI models and systems, according to the bill text. Snopes reached out to the White House and the office of U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, who introduced H.R. 1, for comment about the 10-year moratorium on states regulating AI and the purpose of including it in the bill, and is awaiting responses. Multiple Republican lawmakers have voiced support for the 10-year moratorium, with some saying a patchwork of state laws doesn't support innovation and others stressing the importance of a federal approach to AI regulation. But other federal and state lawmakers as well as watchdog groups have strongly opposed the proposed rule over concerns about limiting states' ability to deal with potential harms caused by AI. For example, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said in an X post on June 3, 2025, that she "did not know about" the section of H.R. 1 that bans states from regulating AI for a decade, adding that she is "adamantly opposed" to the provision. Hundreds of state lawmakers across the political spectrum also signed a letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate on June 3, 2025, expressing "strong opposition" to the 10-year moratorium on AI regulation. The letter read in part, "The proposed 10-year freeze of state and local regulation of AI and automated decision systems would cut short democratic discussion of AI policy in the states with a sweeping moratorium that threatens to halt a broad array of laws and restrict policymakers from responding to emerging issues." Nearly two weeks earlier, a coalition of advocacy organizations, including Common Sense Media, Fairplay and Encode, also called on congressional leaders to oppose the provision, writing in part that AI companies would have "no rules, no accountability and total control" if it were to take effect. In a letter dated May 21, 2025, the groups wrote: As written, the provision is so broad it would block states from enacting any AI-related legislation, including bills addressing hyper-sexualized AI companions, social media recommendation algorithms, protections for whistleblowers, and more. It ties lawmakers' hands for a decade, sidelining policymakers and leaving families on their own as they face risks and harms that emerge with this fast-evolving technology in the years to come. Discussions about AI companions and possible issues arising from their use have gained prominence in recent months. For example, research from Drexel University in Philadelphia suggests that inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment, during conversations with AI chatbots is "becoming a widespread problem," the university said on May 5, 2025. Consumer Reports, another advocacy organization, also raised concerns about states being unable to deal with a variety of issues that AI technology poses, including sexually explicit images, audio and video created without a person's consent. Snopes has previously looked into other claims about the "Big Beautiful Bill," including whether it contains a provision allowing the U.S. president to delay or cancel elections. Arrington, Jodey. "Text - H.R.1 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act." 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Brody, David. "The Big Beautiful Bill Could Decimate Legal Accountability for Tech and Anything Tech Touches." Tech Policy Press, 27 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Cornell Law School. "Commerce Clause." Legal Information Institute, 18 Sept. 2018, Accessed 4 June 2025. Hendrix, Justin. "Transcript: US House Subcommittee Hosts Hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership.'" Tech Policy Press, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025. Open letter from consumer advocacy organizations to congressional leadership. Common Sense Media, 21 May 2025, Accessed 4 June 2025.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Kill the Bill: Elon Musk declares war on Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'
In Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill: Volume 1, the Bride doesn't just seek revenge—she draws blood with elegance, precision, and a katana. , freshly unshackled from his stint inside Trump's government, seems to be channelling the same energy—only this time, the blade is fiscal discipline, and the target is 's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On Wednesday, Musk tweeted to his 180 million followers with a message that could've come straight out of Tarantino's trailer: 'Call your Senator. Call your Congressman. Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL.' Attached was a photoshopped poster of Kill Bill, with Trump's face clumsily plastered over David Carradine's and the bill clutched like a samurai scroll of doom. The Bill in question? H.R.1, passed by the House on May 22. A sprawling $4 trillion mega-package that extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts, pumps funds into border security, expands defence spending—and raises the debt ceiling to eyewatering new heights. MAGA Republicans call it 'historic.' Musk calls it 'a disgusting abomination.' From DOGE to Doomsayer Only days ago, Musk was working inside the belly of the beast as head of DOGE—Trump's ironically titled Department of Government Efficiency. Appointed as a 'special government employee,' he spent 130 days trying to trim Washington's flab. Today, he's torching it from the outside. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk posted on X. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' He followed up with a flurry of economic memes, deficit graphs, and that now-viral Kill Bill parody poster, putting him squarely at odds with the very president who once called him 'America's Tech Da Vinci.' Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Debt Slavery and GOP Dissonance Musk didn't stop at aesthetics. He's gone full Paul Revere with PowerPoint slides. Calling the bill 'Debt Slavery,' he warned that America is 'in the fast lane to fiscal suicide.' By his math, the legislation could blow the deficit past $2.5 trillion and inflate the national debt by as much as $5 trillion—figures echoed, though slightly more cautiously, by the Congressional Budget Office. 'This spending bill contains the largest increase in the debt ceiling in US history!' Musk wrote. 'Congress is making America bankrupt.' Some in the GOP are rattled. Musk was the largest Republican donor of the 2024 election cycle—and now he's threatening to fund primary challenges against any lawmaker backing the bill. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' he posted, turning his money cannon on the very party he helped prop up. Trump's Cool, Congress's Calculus The White House, meanwhile, responded with Trumpian defiance. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shrugged it off: 'This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it.' Trump even posted a nostalgic screenshot of Musk thanking him for the DOGE appointment—equal parts reminder and rebuke. House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to reach out. Musk left him on read, then shared a video clip of Johnson's defence of the bill with a blunt caption: 'We need a new bill that doesn't grow the deficit.' Senator Kevin Cramer was less concerned. 'I don't think very many senators are that interested in what Elon has to say,' he told reporters. 'It's amusing. But we're serious policymakers.' Elon and Donald: The Fallout Some men campaign. Elon Musk campaigned on something. What that "something" was, in hindsight, feels like a mix of politics, pharmaceuticals, vanity, and chaos theory. The Ketamine Candidate Musk's drug use didn't begin with the Trump campaign—it simply became more theatrical. While the Wall Street Journal had reported as early as 2023 that Tesla board members were alarmed by his use of Ambien, The New York Times now paints a darker picture. By 2024, Musk was reportedly taking ketamine so frequently it affected his bladder function. MDMA and psilocybin mushrooms followed, often at private parties across the globe. One image reviewed by NYT showed a pill organiser containing around 20 substances—some labelled as Adderall. The effect? Public incoherence, private panic. What Musk claimed was bi-weekly therapeutic use looked, to many insiders, like daily microcosmic meltdown. The Campaign Trail Becomes a Custody Battle Musk didn't just endorse Trump—he practically embedded himself in the campaign. He appeared at rallies, brought his son X into the Oval Office, and travelled with the child on the trail. Grimes, the boy's mother, objected—saying it violated a custody agreement. But that was just one chapter in Musk's domestic soap opera. In February, right-wing influencer Ashley St. Clair revealed she had given birth to Musk's 14th child. She claimed Musk offered $15 million and $100,000 a month to keep it quiet. When she refused, Musk filed for a gag order. Simultaneously, Neuralink executive Shivon Zilis was pregnant with two more of Musk's children via surrogate—reportedly unaware of St. Clair. If his public persona was spiralling, his private life was already in freefall. Governing with a Chainsaw Inside the administration, things were just as unhinged. After Trump's win, Musk helped design DOGE, rented a cottage at Mar-a-Lago, and joined transition calls with foreign leaders. But colleagues quickly became alarmed. He insulted cabinet members, showed up disoriented to briefings, and raised eyebrows at the inauguration with what neuroscientist Philip Low later condemned as a Nazi-style salute. At CPAC, he donned sunglasses, accepted a chainsaw on stage, and delivered a performance that many said looked more like Burning Man than Beltway. His exit in May 2025 wasn't shocking. The only surprise was that it hadn't come sooner. Exit Wounds Musk's departure from government wasn't a clean break. It was a scorched-earth retreat. He arrived as a tech messiah, a billionaire savant here to trim the fat of government. He left as a psychedelic Cassandra—raging on social media, estranged from his allies, and battling legislation he once helped shape.
