Latest news with #OBBA
The Hill
4 hours ago
- Health
- The Hill
States sue to stop Trump administration from defunding Planned Parenthood
More than 20 states filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Health and Human Services, challenging a provision in President Trump's enormous tax and spending package that bars certain health care nonprofits from receiving Medicaid reimbursements. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) includes a provision that bars health care nonprofits that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023 from being able to get Medicaid reimbursements for one year. The provision primarily impacts Planned Parenthood affiliates, but at least two other organizations that provide abortion care will also be affected: Maine Family Planning and Health Imperatives in Massachusetts. The coalition behind the lawsuit includes Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, along with 21 attorneys general, such as New York's Letitia James and Maine's Aaron Frey. Lawmakers are seeking a court order declaring the OBBA provision unconstitutional and pausing its implementation. 'The federal government is once again playing politics with our health care system, with devastating consequences,' James wrote in a statement. 'The administration's shameful and illegal targeting of Planned Parenthood will make it harder for millions of people to get the health care they need. New York will not be bullied into enforcing this unconstitutional attack on health care and reproductive freedom.' Since the 1970s, a federal law called the Hyde Amendment has made it illegal for federal dollars to pay for abortion services with a few exceptions, such as if the pregnancy endangers the life of the pregnant person or was the result of rape or incest. The attorneys general and Shapiro argue that because of this federal law, the provision will deny low-income Americans access to lifesaving care like cancer screenings and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment. Plaintiffs argue that the provision also harms states financially in two ways, according to the lawsuit. Medicaid is funded by both the federal government and state governments. But now, the financial responsibility for keeping Planned Parenthood clinics open will fall entirely on states. The lack of federal Medicaid funding will also likely cause Planned Parenthood clinics to close, which will 'cripple' medical health care ecosystems and increase long-term medical care costs. The lawsuit is the latest development in a legal saga following the OBBA's signing earlier this month. After Trump signed the OBBA into law, Planned Parenthood sued, arguing that the provision specifically targets the organization's affiliates for advocating for providing abortion care outside the Medicaid system. A U.S. district judge granted Planned Parenthood its request for a temporary injunction, which was extended last week. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said states should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen 'political advocacy over patient care.' 'It's a shame that these Democrat attorneys general seek to undermine state flexibility and disregard longstanding concerns about accountability,' said Andrew Nixon, director of communications at HHS. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood lauded the attempt to block the provision. 'Not all healthcare providers accept Medicaid, but Planned Parenthood does,' wrote Nicole Clegg, CEO or Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. 'Without us, people will lose access to basic health care like cancer screenings, birth control, and disease testing and treatment.'
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Two-income retired couples may lose $18,100 annually in Social Security in 2033
A dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 can expect an average $18,100 lower annual Social Security benefit than if they retired now, according to a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The 24% drop is expected to come just after Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is depleted. OASI holds money collected from payroll taxes to help fund Social Security. That fund is expected to be depleted by late 2032 as the number of retired people outpaces the number of workers. Once OASI's depleted, Social Security benefits will no longer be paid at the full rate. Instead, benefits will be cut, only payable by the amount of money coming in. Even worse, "the cuts would grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues," the nonprofit CRFB said in its analysis. By 2099, the size of the required benefit cut would grow to well over 30%, it said. Here's how cuts could affect Americans The $18,100 annual cut is an average for a two-income couple. Depending on a couple's age, marital status, and work history, the actual size of the benefit cut would vary. Here are some examples of how Americans could be affected, in nominal or non-inflation adjusted terms, CRFB said: A typical single-earner couple would face a $13,600 cut, while a dual-earner low-income couple would face an $11,000 annual cut. High-income couples could see a cut of closer to $24,000. Although the absolute size of the cut would be smaller for a typical low-income couple than for a high-income couple, it would represent a larger share of their income and their past earnings. How many Americans could be affected? In June, nearly 67 million Americans received Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration. Social Security is deemed important by 96% of Americans in 2025, with little difference among age groups and political party affiliation, an AARP survey of 3,599 adults ages 18 and older taken last month showed. AARP is a nonprofit advocating for older Americans. Nearly two in three retired Americans say they rely substantially on Social Security, while another 21% say they rely on it somewhat, AARP said. CRFB vs Social Security and Medicare Trustees The CRFB's estimates of a 24% cut in seven years is more dire than the 23% drop in eight years provided by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees report in June. That's because CRFB accounts for the impact from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) signed into law over the Fourth of July, the think tank said. "The tax rate cuts and increase in the senior standard deduction from the recently enacted OBBBA would reduce Social Security's revenue from the income taxation of benefits, increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency," CRFB said. "If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger." The OBBBA's $6,000 extra senior deduction is slated for 2025 through 2028. What can government do to keep 100% benefits flowing? Congress will have to increase revenue coming into the program by possibly raising payroll taxes, reducing overall spending on benefits maybe by raising the full retirement age, or some combination of the two, AARP suggested. Also, eliminating the maximum income that's taxable for payroll tax and reducing the benefits paid on higher earnings are also among steps Congress could take to save money, the CRFB said. Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@ and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Social Security checks in 2033 may be 24% smaller 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
a day ago
- Business
- Newsweek
SNAP Changes: Trump Bill Adds New Burdens for Millions of Women, Study Says
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) has introduced sweeping changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid, imposing new work and reporting requirements that may add significant burdens for millions of working women, according to a new study. These changes mark the most substantial SNAP cuts in the program's history and affect both federal funding and eligibility rules for vital social safety net programs, according to the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality analysis. Why It Matters The OBBA extends and toughens work requirements for low-income Americans, making it particularly challenging for women, especially mothers, single mothers, older women, and women of color, to maintain access to government support for food and healthcare. Women are already overrepresented among SNAP recipients and are disproportionately affected by unstable jobs, limited benefits, and caregiving demands. Some experts warn that shifting fiscal responsibility to states could deepen disparities, as some state budgets may be unable to absorb the increased costs, potentially resulting in benefit reductions or program curtailments. People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025, in New York City. People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025, in New York To Know The new law targets a broad swath of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries. SNAP, which aids roughly 42 million Americans, relies on federal support to provide food assistance to low-income households. Women make up about 55 percent of the non-elderly adults receiving SNAP, and single mothers lead nearly two-thirds of SNAP households with children, according to Georgetown. Among the 12 million women aged 18 to 64 who participated in SNAP in 2023, the majority worked at some point during the year. "Many of the women impacted by these SNAP changes are already working. The issue is that working more reduces their benefits. The system is set up backwards: 'you work more, you get less.' Who would sign up for that?" Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "That's the choice many women are now faced with—work more and lose support, or be pushed off the program entirely, and as always, people will find workarounds. But that's not policy success—that's survival." Prior to OBBA, SNAP required able-bodied adults aged 18 to 54 without dependents to work at least 80 hours per month to maintain benefits. OBBA expands this requirement to include adults up to age 64 and, critically, to parents or guardians of children aged 14 to 17. Approximately 2 million more women will be newly subject to these requirements, many living in households with children. Medicaid work requirements have also been expanded to nondisabled adults up to age 64, with phased implementation expected starting in 2026-2027, according to the AARP. Many recipients risk losing benefits, not due to non-compliance with work rules, but because of paperwork and frequent eligibility verifications. The new policy not only reduces federal SNAP funding by nearly $300 billion over the next decade but also shifts greater administrative and benefit costs to states. States' share of SNAP administrative costs will rise from 50 percent to 75 percent, and their required contributions to benefits could reach up to 25 percent based on performance. For many states, this could necessitate cutting enrollment, reducing benefits, or limiting other safety-net services. Experts estimate 22 million households could lose all or part of their SNAP benefits, with the risk especially acute for women in low-wage, unstable jobs and older women who may struggle to meet reporting and documentation rules. The combined effects are likely to push more women, children, and families into food insecurity and poverty, undoing much of the progress made during past policy expansions. "Many women and children that encounter these challenges need SNAP to cover crucial nutrition costs, and if these added rules end their participation, it's going to become vastly more difficult for them to financially survive," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. SNAP is a proven tool in reducing food insecurity and stimulating economic activity. Benefit cuts could also ripple through local economies, affecting grocery stores and associated jobs, while simultaneously increasing demand at already taxed food pantries. What People Are Saying Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "What most people don't realize is the true cost to low-income individuals. If healthcare weren't as expensive as it is, people might be able to work more hours and earn more money. But instead, many choose to work less in order to bring home more—because working more could mean losing access to Medicaid." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The potential impacts of recent changes to SNAP for women and children are concerning, especially when you consider how many qualify for these benefits prior to the introduction of additional requirements. Women face many income challenges: careers more heavily pursued by women can generate smaller wages than their male counterparts in other professions, some of those professions are getting more competition and subsequent layoffs due to AI and budget cuts, and childcare costs, particularly for single mothers, make economic progress a constant uphill battle" What Happens Next The rollout of new work and documentation rules will begin for Medicaid in 2026 and for expanded SNAP requirements soon after, though some states may institute changes sooner with waivers. States are already calculating the financial and administrative impacts, with some policymakers warning of potential safety net reductions or exits from SNAP. "Americans should be concerned—because the system is fundamentally broken," Thompson said. "People love to act like this is about personal responsibility or work ethic. But it's not. It's a math problem. If these individuals were a corporation making these same decisions, cutting costs, maximizing take-home, they'd be applauded by Wall Street. Instead, they're demonized by lawmakers."
USA Today
5 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
Two-income retired couple may lose $18,100 annually in Social Security in 2033
A dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 can expect an average $18,100 lower annual Social Security benefit than if they retired now, according to a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The 24% drop is expected to come just after Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund is depleted. OASI holds money collected from payroll taxes to help fund Social Security. That fund is expected to be depleted by late 2032 as the number of retired people outpaces the number of workers. Once OASI's depleted, Social Security benefits will no longer be paid at the full rate. Instead, benefits will be cut, only payable by the amount of money coming in. Even worse, "the cuts would grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues," the nonprofit CRFB said in its analysis. By 2099, the size of the required benefit cut would grow to well over 30%, it said. Here's how cuts could affect Americans The $18,100 annual cut is an average for a two-income couple. Depending on a couple's age, marital status, and work history, the actual size of the benefit cut would vary. Here are some examples of how Americans could be affected, in nominal or non-inflation adjusted terms, CRFB said: How many Americans could be affected? In June, nearly 67 million Americans received Social Security, according to the Social Security Administration. Social Security is deemed important by 96% of Americans in 2025, with little difference among age groups and political party affiliation, an AARP survey of 3,599 adults ages 18 and older taken last month showed. AARP is a nonprofit advocating for older Americans. Nearly two in three retired Americans say they rely substantially on Social Security, while another 21% say they rely on it somewhat, AARP said. CRFB vs Social Security and Medicare Trustees The CRFB's estimates of a 24% cut in seven years is more dire than the 23% drop in eight years provided by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees report in June. That's because CRFB accounts for the impact from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA) signed into law over the Fourth of July, the think tank said. "The tax rate cuts and increase in the senior standard deduction from the recently enacted OBBBA would reduce Social Security's revenue from the income taxation of benefits, increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency," CRFB said. "If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger." The OBBBA's $6,000 extra senior deduction is slated for 2025 through 2028. What can government do to keep 100% benefits flowing? Congress will have to increase revenue coming into the program by possibly raising payroll taxes, reducing overall spending on benefits maybe by raising the full retirement age, or some combination of the two, AARP suggested. Also, eliminating the maximum income that's taxable for payroll tax and reducing the benefits paid on higher earnings are also among steps Congress could take to save money, the CRFB said. Medora Lee is a money, markets, and personal finance reporter at USA TODAY. You can reach her at mjlee@ and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
What Trump's New Tax Law Means for Upper-Middle-Class Families in 2025
President Trump signed his 'One Big Beautiful Act' (OBBA) into law and Americans will see sweeping changes to their finances as a result. The final bill includes a senior bonus to help offset Social Security taxes, tax breaks for service industry employees, a bigger Child Tax Credit, but will also make Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) permanent and cut funding for Medicaid and Medicare, per the Center for American Progress. Read Next: For You: While the bill has been touted as a way to offer financial relief to Americans, it doesn't exactly give much help. 'This thing is mostly smoke and mirrors for upper middle class families (that $117,000 to $150,000 range),' said finance expert Andrew Lokenauth with Be Fluent in Finance. 'You're not getting hammered, but you're not winning either.' Here's what Trump's new tax law really means for the upper-middle class, according to tax and finance experts. Increased Standard Deduction The standard deduction is rising to $15,000 for single filers, an increase of $400 and $30,000 for married couples, which is an increase of $800 per the IRS.'This is a big win for families in this income bracket who don't itemize deductions,' said Peter Diamond, a federally licensed tax, accounting, real estate and structure and certified bankability expert.'Most upper middle class taxpayers don't exceed the itemization threshold, especially with the SALT (state and local taxes) cap still in place. The increased standard deduction gives them a bigger automatic write-off, reducing taxable income and simplifying filing,' he according to Lokenauth, that change could cost some taxpayers more. 'If you're in that $120,000 to $150,000 income zone, especially with a mortgage, the loss of personal exemptions and caps on SALT means you're probably paying more now than you did before 2018,' he added. Check Out: Expanded Child Tax Credit The Child Tax Credit was a big talking point for Trump and Vice President Vance. The credit boosted from $2,000 per qualifying child to $2,220 beginning in 2026, per CNBC. Parents must earn $200,000 a year or less or joint filers up to $400,000. 'That means many families in the $117,000 to $150,000 range, who were previously phased out of this credit, now qualify again,' Diamond said. 'For a family with two children, that's up to $4,000 in tax credits, which directly reduces the tax bill dollar-for-dollar.'However, the new revisions are not as good as they seem, Lokenauth said. 'We got the credit — but the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and phaseouts on other things like education credits basically neutralized any real benefit,' he explained. 'The math got messier, not cleaner.' SALT Deduction Cap Remains While there are ways the upper middle class can get a small break, the State and Local Tax deduction cap will not offer relief, according to Diamond. 'The $10,000 cap remains, which hits high-tax states hard,' he said. 'Families in this income range often pay well over $10,000 in combined property and state income taxes, but they can only deduct up to that cap. While some benefits elsewhere may offset this, it's still a frustrating limitation for many.' Mortgage Interest Deduction Previously under the TCJA you could deduct mortgage interest up to $1 million in debt, but it's now been reduced to $750,000. 'For a lot of upper middle class buyers in expensive housing markets (California, D.C. suburbs, New York burbs), this wipes out a big deduction you probably relied on,' Lokenauth explained.'A friend who bought in Westchester with a $900K mortgage was shocked to learn that only a portion of his interest was deductible. He said it cost him over $3,000 in missed tax savings in his first year alone,' he added. 20% QBI Deduction Extended The Qualified Business Income (QBI) deduction — allowing up to a 20% deduction on pass-through business income — has been extended.'This doesn't help W-2 earners, but for anyone in this income range with a side business, real estate rentals or 1099 income, it's a powerful tool. Structuring income the right way could significantly lower their taxable income,' Diamond an upper middle class income sounds great on paper, but it's not the comfortable salary needed to live after taxes and cost of living.'If you're making around $125,000, you're probably seeing some benefit from the current system — lower marginal rates, bigger standard deduction — but you're also losing more in deductions. Especially if you own a home or pay a lot in local taxes,' Lokenauth knowing the tax codes is beneficial and can work to your advantage, Diamond explained. 'The truth is, wage earners will always pay the most in taxes, while asset owners often pay the least. That's how the system is designed — but when you understand the code, you can use it to your advantage instead of being crushed by it,' he added. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on This article originally appeared on What Trump's New Tax Law Means for Upper-Middle-Class Families in 2025
