Trump wants to quit taxing Social Security benefits: Does anybody have a problem with that?

 I shop regularly at Trader Joe's and often see older people stocking the grocery shelves or managing the cash registers. They look old enough to be drawing Social Security checks. I often wonder whether these people work because they enjoy working or because their Social Security income is inadequate and they need the money.

Social Security income isn't taxed if the recipient has no other income. However, single people with income exceeding $25,000 (or $32,000 if married and filing jointly) must pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.

President Trump proposes to make Social Security income nontaxable, which would be a significant economic boost for older Americans who are drawing their Social Security and working at low-wage jobs in the service industry. 

Many policy wonks oppose Trump's plan because they say affluent retirees would benefit the most. 

To which I say so what? Low-income wage earners don't care how much wealthy Americans pay in taxes as long as their own tax burden decreases. Moreover, Trump's proposal to stop collecting taxes on Social Security can include a phase-out provision that excludes high-income retirees from receiving the tax break.

Other critics say Trump's proposal will hasten the day when the Social Security Trust Funds become insolvent. Most of these doomsday prophets had nothing to say about the money wasted on the Ukraine war or the USAID's fraud and abuse. No, they only worry about the government's solvency when a plan is proposed to give some tax relief to American seniors forced by inflation to cancel their retirement by taking low-wage service jobs.

About 67 million people receive Social Security benefits based on age. Most recipients receive modest Social Security checks; the average monthly benefit is only $1976. In these inflationary times, few can survive if their sole income is their Social Security check. 

Nevertheless, 25 percent of American seniors get 90 percent of their income from Social Security. No wonder many elderly Americans have been forced back into the workforce.

As I have said, Trump's proposal to stop taxing Social Security benefits will be good for older Americans who are working low-wage jobs to supplement their Social Security income. I'm in favor of it.

If the federal government needs to replace the lost revenues that result from Trump's tax relief scheme, it can start taxing the rich at a higher rate. Or maybe the Feds can shrink the federal budget by stopping the Ukraine war and the fraud and abuse in several federal agencies--most notably USAID.

Photo credit: Justin Sulivan/Getty Images

Congress Passes the Social Security Fairness Act: Will This Reform Force Nancy Pelosi to Cut Back on Foreign Travel?

 Congress adopted the Social Security Fairness Act on Saturday. This legislation eliminates the penalty millions of public employees experience if they belong to a pension plan that does not participate in the Social Security system.

This reform will benefit school teachers in at least 15 states. In Louisiana, for example, school districts don't make Social Security contributions for their employees. Teachers are poorly paid, and many take part-time or summer jobs to supplement their income.

Even though teachers make Social Security contributions on their second jobs, their Social Security benefits are reduced solely because their primary employer is not in the Social Security system. The American Federation of Teachers estimates that 1.2 million school employees are penalized by this unfair exclusion.

This reform legislation will allow these teachers to receive the Social Security benefits they deserve when they reach retirement age and enable them to retire without becoming impoverished. 

The Social Security Fairness Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and the question arises: Why did it take so long?

Fiscal conservatives in Congress fought the legislation because the cost would further strain the already financially strapped Social Security program. Indeed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this reform will cost an estimated $196 billion over ten years.

So what? President Biden blew through twice as much money when he forgave $180 billion in student loans over his four-year term and spent another $180 billion on the Ukraine war. I don't hear many people squawking about those expenditures.

This is the new reality. Retired Americans living on fixed incomes are being squeezed by inflation. Forty percent of older Americans depend solely on Social Security to fund their retirement, and the average monthly benefit is only about $2,000.

Surely, we can all agree that modestly enhancing Social Security benefits for retired teachers is a good use of public money. If this reform forces the federal government to economize, there will undoubtedly be some wasteful expenditures that can be eliminated.

For example, perhaps it's time to end American support for the Ukraine war and for Nancy Pelosi to cut back on foreign travel in private jets.

Nancy Pelosi in Japan. Did she fly coach?

New York Times: Don’t worry your pretty little head about the Ukraine war

New York Times reporter Vanessa Friedman published a story last month with advice about what American tourists should wear when vacationing in Europe. It’s okay to wear sneakers, Friedman assures us. However, Americans should wear low-top running shoes to avoid being spotted as tourists. Good to know!

The New York Times’s shoe article contains a subtle, hidden message: Don’t worry your pretty little head about the Ukraine war.

It’s true that a half million soldiers have been killed or maimed over the past 18 months in the fight between Ukraine and Russia. And millions of civilians have fled the war zone and are living as refugees. But the war won’t interfere with Americans’ plans to get drunk at Oktoberfest this fall or smoke dope in Amsterdam. Just be sure to wear the shoes that the Times recommends when you’re frolicking in Europe.

And don’t worry about the money our government is sending to Ukraine. Uncle Sam has plenty of money and can always print more if he runs out.

America’s legacy media has broadly supported the Ukrainians in their senseless war with Russia. The Times and the progressive news outlets have downplayed the fact that Ukraine is losing this war.

But again, don’t worry your pretty little head about it. After all, who cares which side wins the war in Ukraine so long as it doesn’t interfere with our vacation plans.

War in Ukraine? Will it interfere with my vacation?