Latest news with #OneBigBeautifulBillAct
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Where IRS Tax Returns Could Change for 2026
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. Options for filing tax returns are likely to change in 2026 for taxpayers in 25 states. IRS Commissioner Billy Long, whom President Donald Trump appointed to head the federal tax agency last month, appeared to confirm that Direct File—which offers free tax filing directly with the IRS—won't be an option for the next filing season. On Monday, at the National Association of Enrolled Agents' tax summit, he said: "You've heard of Direct File. That's gone. Big beautiful Billy wiped that out." Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress and signed by the president earlier this month, the Treasury has been directed to form a task force to replace the program, which has been running for only two years. Newsweek has contacted the IRS for comment via email. What Is Direct File? Direct File is a web-based service that allows taxpayers to submit simple returns directly with the government agency free of charge, eliminating the need for a third-party tax preparation service. The IRS launched its Direct File pilot in 12 U.S. states in March 2024, expanding it to 25 states for the 2025 tax season. These are the states: Alaska Arizona California Connecticut Florida Idaho Illinois Kansas Maine Maryland Massachusetts Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oregon Pennsylvania South Dakota Tennessee Texas Washington state Wisconsin Wyoming The program, created under the Biden administration, served 141,000 taxpayers across the initial 12 states it was available for in 2024. The Economic Security Project has estimated that the program saved an average of $160 in tax preparation fees for its users. Republicans and private tax preparation companies have derided the program, saying free options already exist for filers and that it is a waste of taxpayer money. Is Direct File Finished? The IRS has not announced that the program is shutting down, but provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act show that the administration is looking for a replacement. Under the legislation, which Trump signed into law on July 4, the Treasury has 90 days from the law's passage to send Congress a report that includes the following: How much it would cost to expand or create public-private partnerships that offer free tax filing for up to 70 percent of taxpayers based on their income. These partnerships would take the place of any IRS-run free filing programs. What taxpayers think about using a free, government-run tax filing system versus one provided by private companies. Whether a new system is possible, how to make all filing options simple and consistent for users, and how to meet different taxpayer needs. The estimated cost of creating and managing a free IRS-run online tax filing system, including options for adjusting the system based on a person's income and how complex their tax return is. Is Direct File Still Open? Direct File remains open through October 15, 2025, for anyone who has yet to file a 2024 tax return. But it is looking unlikely it will be in place for 2026. Given that the administration is looking to replace it, it is also unlikely that it will be expanded to any further states if it remains active for the next tax season. What Other Free Filing Options Are There? The longer-standing Free File program appears to be unaffected. Under that program, companies participating in a public-private partnership with the IRS offer free tax preparation software. IRS Free File offers guided tax software to taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of $84,000 or less. For those who don't qualify, IRS Free File still provides fillable forms that any taxpayer, regardless of income, can use if they prefer to prepare their own return.
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Health
- Forbes
Medicaid At 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes A Gamble
Medicaid at 60: The Hidden Ledger Where Coverage Slips—and Health Becomes a Gamble getty Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was signed into law as part of a sweeping vision to expand health security to the most vulnerable Americans. What began in 1965 as a modest insurance program for low-income families has grown into a cornerstone of the U.S. health care system—serving as the financial backbone of hospitals, nursing homes, and community clinics across the country. But even as the country marks this milestone, that original promise is quietly being rewritten. Congress recently passed the ' One Big Beautiful Bill Act ,' a sweeping piece of legislation that imposes significant Medicaid cuts and eligibility restrictions. In Washington, the bill was framed as fiscal discipline. On the ground, it marked a turning point, redefining Medicaid not as a safety net that rises with need, but as a fixed line item shaped by cost ceilings and conditional access. What follows is a closer look at what happens when that guarantee begins to unravel and when the risk of getting sick becomes something people are forced to calculate for themselves. Medicaid has always done more than cover medical bills. It has been a quiet promise stitched into the fabric of American life—a recognition that the risk of getting sick is not something most families can plan for, much less afford. When that promise is pulled back, as it was last week with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , health care stops feeling like a guarantee and starts feeling like a bet. And for millions, it's a bet they will decide they cannot take. The Promise That Became a Lifeline For nearly six decades, Medicaid operated as an invisible safety net, rising automatically when the economy faltered or when a diagnosis arrived unannounced. It was a hedge against both poverty and uncertainty, a system designed to catch people before a crisis became a catastrophe. Yet the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , formally known as H.R. 1, has fundamentally altered that arrangement. Lawmakers framed the bill as an overdue act of discipline: a way to cap Medicaid's costs, impose work requirements, and make states more accountable for their share of spending. On a balance sheet, the reforms look precise—federal liabilities are clearer, projections are neater, and the fiscal horizon is less volatile. But the trade-offs are not just financial. They are psychological and behavioral, etched into the quiet decisions families make when coverage ends. Behavioral economics helps explain why these decisions rarely unfold as policy architects imagine. A New Law Redefines the Rules Medicaid was always meant to be open-ended. Its funding model guaranteed that if more people lost jobs or fell into poverty, more federal dollars would follow. This arrangement recognized that health care is inherently unpredictable, that no family can perfectly forecast when a child will need an inhaler or a parent will need surgery. By removing that guarantee, the new law transfers uncertainty away from the federal treasury and onto households already living close to the edge. For many, the first moment of impact is deceptively mundane: a letter in the mailbox stating that their coverage is ending. What comes next is shaped by powerful, almost universal forces. When Health Insurance Feels Like a Losing Bet Present bias tells people to value today's savings over tomorrow's risks. A monthly premium feels like a luxury when the refrigerator is half empty and rent is overdue. Even if they understand the danger of going without insurance, uncertainty makes the alternatives—searching for plans, calculating probabilities, comparing deductibles—feel too daunting to confront. Some will try to find new coverage. Others will quietly decide to take their chances. This isn't simply a matter of calculation. It is the predictable result of systems designed without regard for how people actually behave when the floor beneath them shifts. The Quiet Calculus Behind Walking Away Even for those who recognize the risk, the next step is often the hardest. Medicaid, for all its bureaucracy, offers clarity: you are covered. When that certainty vanishes, people must decide whether to buy coverage themselves, estimate the odds of serious illness, and navigate the complexity of health plans. The discomfort of this ambiguity often leads to avoidance. Rather than confront the possibilities, many choose to delay the decision, telling themselves they will sort it out later. Why Coverage Starts to Look Too Expensive to Keep Compounding the problem is loss aversion, the reality that losing something once held feels far worse than never having it at all. For those who have relied on Medicaid for years, the experience of being cut off is not a budget adjustment but a rupture of trust. Even when subsidies exist, many will not take the next step. Familiar ground feels safer, even when it means going uninsured and hoping the worst does not come. These psychological forces do not show up in budget projections. They appear later, in emergency rooms and bankruptcy filings, in the small tragedies of untreated illness and debt that follows people for years. The Subtle Trade-Offs That Tip the Scales Supporters of the law often point to the success of managed care as proof that fixed payments can control costs. But that comparison misses a critical distinction. Managed care transferred risk from governments to insurers, but the federal commitment to match funding remained intact. This legislation severs that link. It turns Medicaid from a guarantee into a capped liability, decoupled from the unpredictable reality of illness and economic hardship. More than sixty percent of Medicaid enrollees are children, older adults, or people living with disabilities. Communities of color rely on it disproportionately, a reflection of generational inequities in income and employment. When the program contracts, it does not simply save money. It reallocates uncertainty downward, to those least able to absorb it, and it multiplies the strain that comes with knowing a single accident or diagnosis could change everything. On the Ground: An ER Surgeon's View Dr. Kimberly Joseph, a retired trauma and emergency surgeon and former Division Chair for Trauma Critical Care and Prevention in the Department of Trauma at the Stroger Hospital of Cook County in Chicago, explains that gaps in Medicaid coverage rarely influence whether trauma patients seek emergency care, but they frequently shape what happens next. 'Problems with insurance coverage could affect the discharge process—lack of insurance or Medicaid coverage could result in delays in getting patients to inpatient rehabilitation.' The complications don't end there. She notes recurring delays in accessing home health services, wound care, or even basic medical equipment like wheelchairs and canes. These disruptions ripple far beyond the patient's bedside. 'We often had patients discharged from other hospitals and told to 'go to County' because they were uninsured ,' she says. 'That created challenges for integrating care, tracking medications, and navigating systems that weren't built to share information.' Dr. Joseph's perspective is a reminder that the consequences of cutting Medicaid are rarely immediate and never contained. They don't stay confined to policy memos or budget reports. They appear in crowded hospital corridors, in the moments when a preventable condition becomes an emergency, and in the quiet calculus that forces families to decide whether health is a risk they are willing—or able—to take. A Commitment Receding Into Memory The savings Congress projects will appear clearly on ledgers. The costs, however, surface in other ways: delayed checkups, untreated diabetes, and emergency care that arrives too late. They show up in lost wages, missed school days, and families who decide—quietly, and often without telling anyone—that health insurance is a bet they can no longer afford to make. Medicaid is not merely a welfare program. It is a promise that in an uncertain world, some risks will be shared, not carried alone. As that promise recedes, the country must confront a simple question: does it still believe that no American should be one diagnosis away from financial ruin—or is health just another wager, left to those willing to take their chances?
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
Warren Buffett's blunt Social Security warning is becoming reality
For many retirees, Social Security benefits are a primary income source, or even their only income source. Unfortunately for those retirees, their financial security is facing a very real and substantial threat. While Social Security is an entitlement program, and the benefits that workers collect from it are earned benefits they are entitled to as a result of paying into the system, there is a strong chance that the program will not continue working as intended. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The issue is one that famed investor Warren Buffett has warned about for a very long time. In fact, his warnings about Social Security date all the way back to 2005, when he responded to a question about whether Social Security was a Ponzi scheme and said, "I basically believe that anything that would take Social Security payments below their present guaranteed level is a mistake." Unfortunately, new evidence suggests that Buffett's warnings are about to become reality, and sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, there is a very real and imminent danger that the cuts Buffett warned about will happen. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has released a very troubling new report demonstrating that the Oracle of Omaha knew exactly what he was talking about. Related: Warren Buffett sends blunt message on Social Security According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Social Security Trust Fund is just over seven years away from being insolvent. This is based on both the Social Security Trustee's report data, as well as the Committee's projections of how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are likely going to impact Social Security. If the reserves in the trust fund are depleted, that means Social Security is only going to be able to pay out benefits from current revenue. The CRFB estimates that this is going to happen late in 2032 and that when it does, a 24% cut to benefits will be necessary. This is different from the most recent projections by the Social Security Trustees, which anticipated that benefits could be paid in full through 2035. It is based on the CRFB's analysis of the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill. For a dual-earning couple, the cut to benefits that could happen in as little as seven years would result in an $18,100 reduction in annual income from Social Security, according to the CRFB's analysis. This is not just a small cut, it is a huge cut – and it seems to be exactly what Buffett was warning about when he said that it would be a mistake to take benefits below their current level. This would be well below that level. Related: AARP CEO sounds the alarm on Social Security Buffett made clear that while he is worried a benefit cut would be a mistake, he also thinks the situation is salvageable if Congress were to act. He has commented that "our country can easily handle the Social Security issue," and has made several suggestions for fixes, including: Increasing the maximum amount of income that is subject to Social Security tax as currently high earners pay taxes only on part of their income up to the wage base limitRaising full retirement age (although he made this suggestion in 2006 and said that 65 might not make sense, and full retirement age has already been moved later and is now 67 for anyone born in 1960 or beyond) The big question is whether Congress has the political will to make these changes, both of which have the potential to be very unpopular. More on retirement: Dave Ramsey offers urgent thoughts about MedicareJean Chatzky shares major statement on Social SecurityTony Robbins has blunt words on IRAs,401(k)s Of course, the changes wouldn't be as unpopular as hitting retirees with a huge cut to benefits that Buffett warned would be such a grave mistake. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
There's hope for pruning federal regulations. Some state experiments are paying off
President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes $100 million for the Office of Management and Budget 'to pay expenses associated with improving regulatory processes and analyzing and reviewing rules.' Following the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, this small investment won't make many headlines — but it should. If that money is put to use in the way several states have done to reduce built-up red tape, the return on investment will make even the crankiest budget hawk crack a smile. A recent Council of Economic Advisers report found that just a modest portion of the president's deregulatory agenda could save the nation some $907 billion. Californians, who live in America's most-regulated state, understand these costs better than most. Take housing, for example. California's thriving economy and broad appeal are a recipe for expensive homes, but its famously stringent building and other restrictions create something else: enough scarcity to propel home prices to around 2.5 times the national median. The costs extend further than the sticker price. They make it harder to rebuild after a natural disaster. They send workers and employers fleeing for other states or far-flung areas. They keep young people from finding their way to Westwood, Berkeley or Silicon Valley for better futures. All of this adds up, and it's about more than a handful of 'good' or 'bad' regulations. It's about moving too slowly to streamline an entire system that fails millions of people. Federal officials now have resources and a mandate to identify failures in the federal code — the question is 'how?' The answer is taking shape. Federal officials can look at a specific playbook that's getting results in nearby Richmond, Va. Shortly after taking office in 2022, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order setting the ambitious goal of cutting regulatory requirements by 25% by the end of his term. As of this month, his administration has hit the target, and Virginia's Office of Regulatory Management anticipates cutting nearly 33% — and 50% of the words in related guidance documents — by the end of his term. These numbers are not smoke and mirrors or budgeting gimmicks. Virginia painstakingly and comprehensively inventoried its regulations, including third-party standards that are referenced (which therefore become regulations, too) and guidance documents. Every change has been meticulously and transparently cataloged on the state's regulatory town hall website. And what's the return on investment? So far, it's saving Virginia businesses and citizens more than $1.2 billion per year. From reducing the number of training hours required to earn a living as a licensed cosmetologist to streamlining housing regulations (estimated to shave $24,000 off the construction cost of a new house and enable construction professionals to work much faster), working people are coming out ahead. Virginia is showing Washington that substantial regulatory reform can be accomplished on a shoestring budget. The office that was stood up to oversee the reforms — the Office of Regulatory Management — consists of only four dedicated employees: a director, a deputy director and two policy analysts. Going forward, artificial intelligence will further reduce the costs of cataloguing and processing untold amounts of regulatory requirements. The technology is a perfect fit for regulatory text. It can process thousands of pages in a tiny fraction of the time it takes a person — and given the hundreds of thousands of pages of such text on the books in Washington, investing in AI-driven regulatory review tech should be a top priority for that $100-million budget. The White House can also learn from Virginia's specific application of AI. The state is undertaking a pilot program with at least two separate approaches. First, its AI tool will scan both statutory and regulatory codes side by side and identify the regulatory requirements that go beyond the minimum laid out by statute. Many of these 'discretionary' requirements may still prove necessary to protect public health and safety, but some will not. A human being will then look at the mismatches and examine which regulations to consider scaling back. Second, the tool will compare each government agency's regulatory code against the corresponding codes of other states. A human being will again review the results and identify instances in which Virginia regulation is needlessly stricter than that of other states. For example, the algorithm might flag that Virginia requires professional masseurs to undergo 500 hours of training, while the least restrictive state requires only 300 hours. Absent evidence that the other state produces subpar or unsafe practitioners, Virginia officials might decide the 500-hour requirement is too strict. Of course, a state may have a perfectly legitimate reason to impose stricter regulatory restrictions than others. That's why the algorithm merely creates a 'heat map' to start the process of identifying onerous burdens. By producing the necessary analysis in a matter of seconds, it allows officials to focus on applying human insight and judgment. Led by Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas officials — noting my findings that their state is America's fifth-most-regulated and could see a half-trillion-dollar economic boost with its own deregulation effort — are now taking a similar approach to Virginia's. Imagine if the federal government were to implement similar technology. Gone would be the days of regulations from different agencies contradicting each other or outdated rules remaining on the books because humans haven't had the time to update them. The Trump administration hasn't shied away from making big bets and pushing fundamental reforms. With just a $100-million investment, officials in the Office of Management and Budget can now transform the way Washington regulates. They should start by talking to their counterparts in Richmond. Patrick A. McLaughlin, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, created the RegData and QuantGov projects, which quantify regulations using data-science tools and have informed reforms in several states.
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Republicans Passed the One Big Beautiful Bill to Secure Our Borders—Here's What We Must Do Next
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was the product of many months of hard work by Congress and the unwavering leadership of President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson. The legislation stands as a landmark achievement, and it represents a sea change for border security and immigration enforcement. That change is long overdue, particularly as we work to undo the devastation of the Biden-Harris border crisis. President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speak to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speak to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025, in Washington, the turnaround are historic investments in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Among other achievements, Republicans approved more than $46 billion to finish construction of the strategic border barrier system, $45 billion to expand ICE's ability to detain illegal aliens, and approximately $35 billion to recruit, hire, and retain thousands more CBP and ICE officers, agents, and support personnel. But the work to ensure long-lasting border security and interior enforcement is far from over. While Republicans maintain majorities in Washington, we must advance the ball even further. There are three key areas in which we still have a long way to go—but the path is clear. First, we must act quickly to codify President Trump's executive orders. As we learned when President Joe Biden took office and ended essentially every effective border security and enforcement policy of the first Trump administration, executive actions can be undone—sometimes with devastating consequences. If we want the policy wins of the second Trump administration to be guaranteed for future generations, we must turn those executive orders into law. The reconciliation process allowed us to secure many key victories, but the rules of that process also prevented us from enacting policy changes without a clear fiscal impact. That means there are numerous reforms still on the table demanding our attention and action. For starters, to prevent future abuse of our immigration laws and protect our families and communities from the scourge of the fentanyl crisis, we must advance and expand upon the policies put forward in H.R.2, the Secure the Border Act, a historic border security and immigration reform bill that passed the House last Congress but was ignored by the Democrat-led Senate. Some of those reforms include explicitly prohibiting mass parole and nationality-based parole programs, closing asylum and catch-and-release loopholes, expanding expedited removal, cracking down on visa overstays, and expanding grounds for inadmissibility. The American people support such strong measures. They resoundingly endorsed these policies in the 2024 election after President Trump ran on a platform of mass deportations. Poll after poll shows continued support for that platform, despite increasingly outrageous Democrat rhetoric. Second, Republicans need to ramp up our investigative and accountability efforts, starting with looking deeply into the Biden-era officials who crafted, implemented, and defended the unlawful open-borders policies that caused untold harm to our nation. The burgeoning "auto-pen" scandal of the Biden administration—which casts into doubt whether President Biden was of sound mind and personally responsible for many of the policy decisions of his administration, even from its earliest days—sparks some troubling questions. Chief among these is how many of the radical policy decisions on border security and immigration enforcement were driven not by the president, but by others in the White House who saw the opportunity to systemically undermine longstanding U.S. immigration law in pursuit of open-borders, anti-enforcement policies? We have already identified a number of individuals involved in the Biden transition team and the administration that played a role in this crisis, and we must aggressively expand our investigation into them and pursue accountability where we can. Third and finally, we need to hold accountable the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that helped facilitate the Biden-Harris administration's border crisis. The House Committee on Homeland Security has devoted substantial time and effort into uncovering how these NGOs served as a conduit for illegal immigration under the previous administration, often to their own substantial financial benefit. A few weeks ago, we sent a letter to more than 200 NGOs suspected of providing services and benefits to illegal aliens, seeking information about how these groups have used federal taxpayer dollars. We need to expand these probes, and as chairman of the Committee's Border Security and Enforcement Subcommittee, I fully intend to do so. No organization should be allowed to subvert or undermine U.S. laws, and they most certainly should not be doing so with taxpayer money. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and we need to not only prevent further abuse via legislative solutions but also demonstrate that those who do will answer for their actions. This is a bold agenda for the House Republican conference and the House Committee on Homeland Security. But the American people have spoken unequivocally. Just like President Trump, they want the border secured, illegal aliens removed, and their communities made safe. They also want accountability for the harm caused to our country and a firm commitment to advancing President Trump's proven border security agenda. We must show that we are up to the task. Congressman Michael Guest is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement and is currently serving his fourth term as the U.S. representative for Mississippi's 3rd Congressional District. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
