Latest news with #CenteronBudgetandPolicyPriorities
CNBC
a day ago
- Business
- CNBC
GOP Sen. Murkowski cast crucial vote for Trump's megabill after getting key carveout
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska cast a critical vote Tuesday for President Donald Trump's massive tax-and-spending bill, helping to push the controversial legislation through the GOP-controlled Senate. But not before she secured a key carveout for her constituents from one of the bill's strictest new provisions. "Do I like this bill? No. But I tried to take care of Alaska's interests," she told NBC News' Ryan Nobles Tuesday. "I advocated for my state's interests, I will continue to do that and I will make no excuses for doing that," Murkowski said after she cast the final 'yea' that Republicans needed to reach 50 votes and trigger a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance. "I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill," she told Nobles. "I don't like that." But she voted for it anyway, she said, because her state would benefit overall. Murkowski, a moderate Republican who has criticized Trump, has raised concerns about the bill's provisions making cuts to SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — also known as food stamps. One-tenth of Alaskans received help from SNAP in 2024, according to data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Alaska also has by far the nation's highest SNAP payment error rate, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But she ultimately backed the bill after securing last-minute benefits, including a boost in funding for rural hospitals and a carveout on SNAP cuts for her state. The final Senate bill exempts states with the highest SNAP error rates from the cuts for two years. In a lengthy statement later Tuesday, Murkowski touted her efforts to improve the bill for her state. "My goal throughout the reconciliation process has been to make a bad bill better for Alaska, and in many ways, we have done that," Murkowski wrote on social media. "While we have worked to improve the present bill for Alaska, it is not good enough for the rest of our nation—and we all know it," she wrote. The bill passed the Senate 51-50 after Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaker vote. Three Republicans — Susan Collins of Maine, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Kentucky's Rand Paul — sided with all of the chamber's Democrats. The legislation now returns to the House for a final vote. If it passes, it will head to Trump's desk to be signed into law. Paul had characterized the GOP leadership's final deliberations over the bill as a choice between "dealing with me and reducing the debt ceiling or giving pork and subsidies to Alaska." "They chose to add more pork and subsidies for Alaska to secure that," Paul said, Nobles reported. Murkowski took offense at Paul's critique, which was summarized to her as him calling her vote "a bailout for Alaska at the expense of the rest of the country." "Oh my," Murkowski said. She then stared at Nobles for about 15 seconds without speaking. "My response is, I have an obligation to the people of the state of Alaska, and I live up to that every single day. I fight for my state's interests, and I make sure that Alaskans are understood. I work hard to take care of a state that has more unique situations, more unique people, and it's just different," she said. "And so when, when people suggest that federal dollars go to one of our 50 states in a quote, bailout, I find that offensive," she said. Murkowski told reporters after the vote that her decision was "agonizing." She also said she hopes that the House will continue to make changes to the bill, rather than try to ram it through in order to send it to Trump by his aspirational deadline of Friday, which is Independence Day. "We do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination. My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet," she said. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, tore into Murkowski over that remark later Tuesday. "My question to her is, If you really believe that, why the hell did you vote for this bill?" McGovern said. Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., wrote on X, "Murkowski votes yes and hopes it doesn't pass ... It's pretty simple: words don't matter. Votes do."
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Social Security Benefit Cuts Are Coming: Here's the Timeline of How We Got Here and the Latest Forecast of When These Cuts Can Take Place
The latest Board of Trustees Report estimates that the 75-year funding deficit for Social Security has ballooned to more than $25 trillion. Even worse, cash outflows from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, which doles out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivor beneficiaries, are accelerating. More than a half-dozen variables have played a role in Social Security's weakening financial outlook. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For many of the nearly 53 million retired workers who receive a monthly Social Security benefit, this income is indispensable. In 2023, the Social Security program pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and older. Further, it's helped lower the federal poverty rate for those 65 and older, from an estimated 37.3% without the program to 10.1% with Social Security income (as of 2023), based on an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Despite the foundational role Social Security plays in the financial well-being of retired workers, this program is on anything but stable ground. Let's examine how America's leading retirement program got into this mess and lay out the updated timeline for when benefit cuts are expected to take place. Every year since the first Social Security benefit check was mailed out in 1940, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published a report that intricately details the financial health of the program. This report tracks every dollar collected in income during the previous year and documents where every dollar is spent. But what tends to garner the most attention is the Trustees' long-term forecast, which is defined as the 75 years following the publishing of a report. The Trustees take into account an assortment of fiscal and monetary policy changes, as well as demographic shifts, to estimate how financially sound Social Security will be over the long run. Shortly after the bipartisan Social Security Amendments of 1983 were signed into law, the Trustees Report pointed to long-term trouble. Every report since 1985 has cautioned of a long-term funding shortfall. In simple terms, the estimated income to be collected over the 75 years following the release of a report is projected to be insufficient to cover program outlays, which include benefits (plus annual cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs) and, to a far lesser extent, the administrative costs to oversee Social Security. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was issued less than two weeks ago, and it estimates the long-term unfunded obligation has ballooned to $25.1 trillion through 2099. While this is a daunting figure, it's not the most pressing problem for Social Security or the program's beneficiaries. The glaring issue is the forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund, which is responsible for dishing out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased workers. In 2020, the OASI's asset reserves expanded by $7.4 billion to $2.812 trillion, which is just shy of its all-time high of $2.82 trillion (set in 2017). Every year since then, the OASI has outlaid more in capital than it's collected in income. The latest Trustees Report points to this outflow accelerating in the coming years, from a documented $103.2 billion outflow in 2024 to an estimated $441.9 billion outflow from the OASI in 2032. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are expected to be completely exhausted. The silver lining here is that the OASI isn't required to have a cent in its asset reserves to continue doling out benefits to eligible retired workers and survivors of deceased workers. The 12.4% payroll tax on earned income generates the bulk of income collected by Social Security, which means payments will continue as long as Americans keep working and paying their taxes. In short, there's no danger of bankruptcy or insolvency for current or future generations of retirees. But the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report does indicate that the existing payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, is unsustainable beyond 2033. If nothing is done to reform Social Security, OASI benefits may need to be cut by 23% in just eight years, which is a steeper reduction than was forecast in the previous Trustees Report. Here's the prevailing question on the minds of current and future beneficiaries: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with concrete certainty is that the notions of Congress "stealing" funds and undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits are both completely false and nothing more than internet myths. Every cent of Social Security's trust funds is accounted for and updated monthly online, and both legal and undocumented migrants are a financial benefit to the Social Security program. Rather, Social Security's shaky foundation can be boiled down to seven variables, some of which are more apparent than others: Baby boomers retiring: As baby boomers leave the workforce in greater numbers, there simply aren't enough new workers to replace them. This has led to a steady decline in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Increased longevity: When the first Social Security retired-worker benefit was mailed in January 1940, the average life expectancy in this country was about 63 years. In 2023, the average life expectancy stood at 78.4 years, according to mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Social Security wasn't designed to pay benefits to the average retiree for close to two decades. Rising income inequality: In 1983, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salaries, but not investment income) was subject to Social Security's 12.4% payroll tax. But as of 2023, only 83% of earned income was applicable to the payroll tax. This shows that wages and salaries for high earners are increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which is what controls the upper bound of the taxable earnings cap associated with the payroll tax. A record-low fertility rate: According to the CDC, the U.S. fertility rate (projected births per woman over their lifetime) hit a record low in 2023. Couples are waiting longer to get married and have children, with some clearly concerned about the economics of bringing a child into the world. If low birth rates persist, it'll further weigh on an already challenged worker-to-beneficiary ratio. A sizable decline in legal net migration into the U.S.: Another culprit has been the sizable drop-off in legal net migration into the U.S. since 1997. Social Security counts on younger workers migrating to the U.S. and contributing via the payroll tax for decades before one day earning a retirement benefit of their own. Fewer legal migrants equate to less payroll tax being collected. Fed monetary policy: The nation's central bank deserves a piece of the blame, as well. A period of historically low interest rates throughout the 2010s sent Treasury bond yields plummeting. Social Security's asset reserves are required by law to be invested in special-issue, interest-bearing, government bonds. When yields plunged, so did Social Security's ability to generate meaningful interest income. Congressional inaction: Lawmakers are to blame for Social Security's woes, but not for the mythical belief that they've stolen funds. Rather, the inability of Republicans and Democrats to find common ground is kicking the can on an important issue, widening the long-term funding deficit, and making an eventual fix even costlier for working Americans. Make no mistake about it, there are solutions from both sides of the political aisle that would strengthen Social Security. But with 60 votes needed in the Senate to amend the Social Security Act, there's no chance of fortifying this all-important social program until lawmakers from both parties find common ground. All the while, benefit cuts are now just an estimated eight years away. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefit Cuts Are Coming: Here's the Timeline of How We Got Here and the Latest Forecast of When These Cuts Can Take Place was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
6 Things Retirees Should Consider When Taking Out a Personal Loan
You can use a personal loan for many different reasons, including debt consolidation, medical expenses or home repairs. But just because you might qualify for a loan doesn't mean you should get one. Learn More: Consider This: If you're retired and thinking about taking out a personal loan, weigh your options carefully. While you're at it, ask yourself these questions first. Personal loans can be expensive. The larger the loan — and the higher the interest rate — the more you're going to pay over the repayment term. You could get a loan for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. You could choose a relatively short repayment term — say, a few months — or get one that takes years to repay. Longer terms typically mean smaller monthly payments, but higher overall interest charges. Some lenders charge additional fees, like origination fees or late fees. In some cases, you might be hit with a prepayment penalty for trying to pay it off early. Be Aware: The average retiree receives just under $2,000 monthly (estimated) from their Social Security benefits. You might have other income sources or get a higher paycheck, but is it enough to cover the personal loan and your regular bills? 'Determine if you can afford this additional bill each month,' said Casey Brueske, certified credit union financial counselor (CCUFC) and community education development specialist at PenAir Credit Union. 'As a retiree, living on a fixed income means you need to ensure this fits within your budget.' According to Forbes, personal loan rates typically range from 7% to 36%. Rates depend on your credit score, income and related factors. Here's what your monthly payment might look like on a $5,000 personal loan with a three-year repayment term (based on different rates): 7% interest rate = $154 monthly 22% interest rate = $191 monthly 36% interest rate = $229 monthly Between the three options, that's a $75 monthly difference. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, roughly 10% of people ages 65 and up who collect Social Security fall below the poverty line. The 2024 federal poverty line for a one-person household is $15,060. Retirees who fall below the poverty line earn about $1,255 a month. Depending on how tight your retirement income is, even a relatively small personal loan could be detrimental to your finances. Brueske noted that getting a personal loan could be a good idea if you get a low interest rate and manageable monthly payments. But you should still consider whether it's necessary. A loan 'can provide you with immediate access to extra funds, which is beneficial for unexpected expenses, home repairs and more,' said Brueske. But if you can get what you need without taking on a loan, you might want to consider that. Taking on a new monthly bill can be stressful — not just on your budget. Falling behind on payments could mean late fees or penalty APRs. It can also impact your credit score or lead to calls from debt collectors — things nobody needs, least of all those who should be enjoying their golden years. Make sure you're prepared for any risks. Consider your overall financial picture and think about whether or not it's likely to change — either for the better or worse — going forward. 'If you're on a fixed income, a loan might put a band-aid over your financial situation, but that cover will only last a few months,' said Melanie Musson, finance expert with 'Eventually, the money you borrowed will run out, and you'll then have to pay an additional bill to repay what you borrowed.' If you're taking out a loan because you're struggling to make ends meet, that loan will only help temporarily. You might need to make some lifestyle changes or find other ways to reduce expenses. 'Taking out a personal loan is rarely a good idea for a senior. You could end up in a hole you can't dig out of,' said Musson. Before taking out a personal loan, look into other financial resources first. There are government and community programs that can help with things like food, energy and medical costs. Many of these resources are only available to those earning below a certain amount, or to seniors. Your state government's website or are good places to start. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard How Much Money Is Needed To Be Considered Middle Class in Your State? 6 Popular SUVs That Aren't Worth the Cost -- and 6 Affordable Alternatives This article originally appeared on 6 Things Retirees Should Consider When Taking Out a Personal Loan Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Social Security: This Hidden Threat Could Cost the Average Retiree $4,440 Per Year
Social Security is vital for millions of Americans, but it's facing some major challenges. Loss of buying power could cost retirees thousands of dollars per year, and the faltering trust funds could also lead to benefit cuts. No matter what happens, it's wise to start preparing now. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security keeps around 16 million seniors out of poverty each year, according to 2023 data from the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, making it a crucial lifeline for many Americans. However, the program isn't as strong as it once was. Uncertainty surrounding potential benefit cuts could throw a wrench in some people's plans, and there's another hidden threat that could cost the average retiree more than $4,000 per year: the drastic loss of buying power. Social Security is designed so that, in theory, it should keep up with rising costs over time. The annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) aim to help benefits maintain their buying power, with retirees receiving yearly raises to help combat inflation. But in the last couple of decades, those COLAs haven't been enough. Social Security has lost around 20% of its buying power since 2010, according to a 2024 report from nonpartisan advocacy group The Senior Citizens League. The report found that, at the time of publishing, the average retired worker received around $1,860 per month in benefits. But if benefits had maintained their buying power, that average should have been around $2,230 per month. That's a difference of $370 per month, or $4,440 per year. This loss of purchasing power appears to have been worsening in recent years, too. The report found that between 2010 and 2024, there have only been five years in which the COLA outpaced the inflation rate for that year. Between 2020 and 2024, just one COLA managed to beat inflation. Social Security isn't going as far as it used to even a decade ago, and if this trend continues, it may be more difficult or even impossible for the average retiree to survive on their benefits. Even more concerning is the possibility of benefit cuts, which could be coming sooner than expected. According to the Social Security Board of Trustees' 2025 report on the state of the program, the two trust funds are expected to run out by 2034 -- one year sooner than estimated last year. Also, once those funds are depleted, the program's income sources are only expected to cover around 81% of scheduled benefits -- which is also down from 83% last year. This means that by 2034, benefits could potentially be slashed by around 19%. To be clear, this doesn't mean that cuts are guaranteed to happen. Lawmakers could find a solution before 2034 to avoid cuts and potentially even help Social Security regain its lost buying power. However, until that plan is in place, it may be a good idea to develop a backup plan. If you're not yet retired, increasing your savings even slightly can help reduce your dependence on Social Security. Investing $200 per month at an 8% average annual return can amount to close to $35,000 after a decade. For the average retiree, that's equal to roughly 18 months' worth of benefits. Delaying claiming benefits is another option. The average retiree collects around $807 more per month at age 70 than at 62, according to 2024 data from the Social Security Administration. Even if you can only delay benefits by a year or two, that could boost your payments enough that potential cuts and loss of buying power won't sting quite so much. Social Security may be facing challenges, but that doesn't mean it's going away entirely. Even if the trust funds run out and benefits lose more buying power, retirees can still rely on their payments to some extent. That said, by taking steps now to reduce your dependence on your benefits, you'll be more prepared no matter what the future may hold. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security: This Hidden Threat Could Cost the Average Retiree $4,440 Per Year was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
10-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
SNAP Cuts Warning Over $85 Million of Nutrition Assistance
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Rhode Island could foot the bill for $85 million in SNAP benefits if the Republican budget bill passes, a senator has said. Why It Matters Under the Republican-led One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is making its way through the legislative process, states could be made to pay for a portion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. As it stands, states pay for half of the administrative costs of running the program, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture pays the other half. The USDA also covers the entire cost of benefits. In Rhode Island—which ranks 15th in the country for SNAP usage, according to an analysis by Trace One—SNAP is delivered to about 144,000 residents, providing monthly benefits to low- and no-income families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities think tank reported in March that shifting some of the cost of SNAP benefits to states would negatively affect state budgets "at a time when many states are facing revenue downturns." What To Know Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, has said the Ocean State could be on the hook for $85 million of the roughly $343.5 million the state receives from the USDA to pay for SNAP benefits. Other provisions outlined in the bill, such as expanding work requirements and limiting future benefit increases, could "reduce monthly nutrition assistance for children from low-income families, seniors, disabled Americans, and veterans below what is necessary to maintain a healthy diet," a June 6 news release from Reed's office said. Reed said the entire state would be affected by the proposed SNAP cuts, not only through a potential loss of benefits for recipients but also lost productivity and increased expenditures in other public areas, such as health care. He said it would also affect the state's businesses and economy. A stock image of a SNAP sign in a retailer's window. A stock image of a SNAP sign in a retailer's window. GETTY "Every dollar in federal SNAP investment generates over $1.50 in economic activity," Reed said. "If you start taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the local economy, it means stores close, farms go under, and food prices keep going up. Ultimately, the Republican plan would make it harder for Rhode Island families to afford their grocery bills." The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in its March report: "States are not in a position to absorb these substantial additional costs. In fiscal year 2024, tax revenue fell in 40 states after adjusting for inflation, and many states are projecting budget shortfalls in the short and long term." Other states have also warned that they could be forced to pay millions to keep SNAP benefits available if the bill passes in its current form. In late May, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services said the state would lose about $314 million in food assistance if the legislation came to pass. Michigan has also warned that it could be forced to foot a $900 million bill for food assistance. What People Are Saying Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, said in a news release issued on June 6: "When Republicans threaten to cut SNAP benefits, they're really threatening public health, working families, and our economy. Access to food is essential for everyone. The Republican plan would mean less food for the poor, fewer jobs, and less economic activity in the community. It would increase hunger and hardship." Darcy Milburn, the director of Social Security and health care policy at the Arc of the United States, told Newsweek: "Any cuts to SNAP funding would make it even harder for people with disabilities and their families to access the food they need to live healthy lives. We urge Congress to reject proposals for any cuts to SNAP, and to work on a bipartisan basis to strengthen and protect this critical program." Lisa Roth Blackman, the chief philanthropy officer of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, said in a news release: "The impact that this cut will have on families, children, seniors, and veterans will be catastrophic. Kids will be less ready to learn in school. Working adults won't have the energy to work. Seniors will be forced to make terrible choices about whether to pay for prescriptions and healthcare or food. And veterans and people with disabilities will struggle to get the food they need to survive and thrive." President Donald Trump, who has not commented directly on the SNAP provisions, wrote on Truth Social following the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives: "It's time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!" What Happens Next The bill moves to the GOP-controlled Senate this week, where lawmakers may propose changes to the legislation.
