MSNBC: ‘Who pays the tariffs?’ Furious constituents grill GOP House member, causing him to leave
Reply
Tag Archives: Social Security
Moneywise: Trump’s ‘no tax on overtime’ is now US law — but some Americans don’t even qualify. Here’s the catch
They say that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” however, claims to eliminate one of those — at least for overtime hours.
The budget bill, passed in July, followed up on a key Trump campaign promise to eliminate taxes on overtime pay. Even better: the law is retroactive to the beginning of 2025, giving those who work overtime an additional six months of tax-free wages ahead of all the money the bill will save them going forward.
But the reality may be far less generous than it sounds.
Before you start planning how to spend all that extra cash, be aware that the new law contains several big, not-so-beautiful catches.
Not all overtime pay is tax exempt
In touting the elimination of taxes on overtime pay in the budget bill, the White House claimed that the law “makes good on … President Trump’s cornerstone campaign promises and benefits hardworking Americans where they need it the most — their paychecks.”
And in some ways, it does. The reality, however, is that the “Big Beautiful Bill” only eliminates some tax on overtime pay.
To start, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that the tax break only pertains to a portion of overtime pay, or the “‘half’ of ‘time and a half pay’, required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.”
For example, if a worker makes $40 an hour, then their time and a half overtime would amount to $60 an hour. Of that $60, only $20 (the “half” part of “time and a half”) remains tax-free.
Additionally, “no tax on overtime” is a federal income-tax change only. State and local income taxes still apply (unless your state separately conforms), and Social Security and Medicare taxes are still withheld on all wages, including overtime.
As well, there’s a cap to how much overtime pay remains tax-exempt: $12,500 per person annually, or $25,000 for people filing together. Earners who make more than $150,000 (or $300,000 combined between two people filing together) are not eligible for tax-free overtime pay.
Another issue, raised by Forbes, is horizontal equity: two people with the same annual pay can end up taxed differently. An hourly worker who logs FLSA overtime can deduct part of that overtime, while a salaried worker putting in the same extra hours gets no break.
Then there are those workers whose overtime pay is dictated by different agreements or laws. The WSJ pointed to airline and railroad workers as examples of those “who often get overtime pay under union contracts and are exempt from FLSA because they are covered by the Railway Labor Act.” These workers generally will not qualify for the deduction on their contract overtime.
They added that “One result is different treatment for similar jobs. An airline jet mechanic wouldn’t get the deduction but an airplane mechanic at a separate maintenance company could.”
The long-term fallout
Beyond the immediate monetary effect, a more broad catch to the new law could make itself known in the long run.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) raised concerns that the law will incentivize many to work as much overtime as possible to gain the extra income, including evenings and weekends — habits “associated with a range of negative impacts on physical and mental health, well-being, and productivity.”
In addition, those unable to work overtime for personal or health reasons will lose out on the benefits. The EPI called the law “another gimmick that does more harm than good” and suggested that offering workers raises so they don’t have to work the extra hours would prove a better option.
Forbes, meanwhile, labeled the law “a stealth anti-job creation measure” because it lessens the need for employers to hire more workers.
“A 50-hour week for one employee can be replaced by tacking on an additional 10 hours across five separate workers. The overtime deduction thus may boost take-home pay for some, but it does so by encouraging a labor distribution that concentrates hours in the hands of fewer people.”
That said, according to Tax Policy Center estimates, only 9% of American households will actually save money by paying fewer taxes on overtime pay, resulting in an average added windfall of roughly $1400 annually. Most workers will see the benefit at tax time.
And, of course, there’s one final caveat to the “no tax on overtime pay” law: it expires in 2028.
As usual where King Donald is concerned, the joke’s on us!
Newsweek: Social Security predicted to run out of money sooner due to Trump bill
A federal actuary has acknowledged that Social Security trusts will begin to become insolvent by 2034, with just 81 percent of beneficiaries estimated to receive their promised benefits.
Chief Actuary Karen Glenn wrote in a letter to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, a Senate Finance Committee ranking member, on Tuesday: “Because the revenue from income taxation of Social Security benefits is directed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, implementation of the OBBBA will have material effects on the financial status of the Social Security trust funds.”
“The ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act’ provides historic tax relief to America’s seniors,” a Social Security Administration (SSA) spokesperson told Newsweek on Thursday. “As Commissioner [Frank] Bisignano has repeatedly emphasized, ensuring the long-term financial health of these trust funds remains a top priority.
“The Social Security Administration is committed to working with Congress and other stakeholders to protect and strengthen these vital programs, ensuring that millions of Americans can continue to rely on Social Security for a secure retirement and support in times of disability—both now and in the future. We remain focused on responsible stewardship and transparent communication.”
Why It Matters
The Social Security system, supporting retirement income for tens of millions of Americans, now faces an earlier-than-expected financial crisis following major United States tax policy changes. The 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted under President Donald Trump, has shifted the projected date of insolvency, which could impact benefit payouts for about 62 million retirees and dependents.
Policymakers, financial experts and advocacy groups have responded with warnings about the urgent need for legislative action to preserve benefits and the long-term viability of the program that remains a cornerstone of American social policy. Without intervention, automatic cuts could leave Americans with roughly three-quarters of the benefits currently anticipated.
This issue not only affects today’s retirees but also has profound implications for future generations of U.S. workers who depend on the ongoing stability of the Social Security system. The projected financial strain intensifies longstanding debates on tax policy, government spending and entitlement reform.
The SSA reported that roughly 70 million people were receiving Social Security benefits as of June of this year.
What To Know
The SSA revised its timetable for trust fund depletion following the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025.
The Office of the Chief Actuary, under the guidance of SSA, reported that cumulative costs to the Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds (jointly called OASDI) would increase by roughly $168.6 billion over the coming decade due largely to lower income tax rates and new deduction rules, including a temporarily enhanced standard deduction for seniors.
As a result, the actuarial balance further deteriorated to -3.98 percent from -3.82 percent.
If combined with further projections, Social Security reductions for future generations could reach or exceed 30 percent.
Social Security benefits will face an automatic 24 percent cut at the time of insolvency in late 2032, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). By 2099, that cut could exceed well over 30 percent.
That 2032 estimate is equivalent to an $18,100 annual benefit cut for a dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033, shortly after trust fund insolvency. Simultaneously, those same retirees might experience reduced access to health care due to an 11 percent cut in Medicare Hospital Insurance payments.
Cuts would grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues, per the nonpartisan CRFB. The same actuarial forecasts warned that Medicare’s trust fund faces a similar timeline, expecting depletion in 2033.
CRFB’s estimates are somewhat larger than those implied by the most recent trustees’ report, due to tax rate cuts and an increase in the senior standard deduction from OBBBA, reducing Social Security’s revenue from the income taxation of benefits, which they say is increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency.
“If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger,” CRFB said.
Newsweek reached out to CRFB via email for additional comment.
The revised insolvency projections are also the product of broader demographic changes, including increased retirements among baby boomers, a declining birth rate, and lowered wage-growth expectations.
The latest trustee report in mid-June highlighted that, even apart from recent legislation, taxes collected for Social Security have struggled to keep pace with payouts due to the program’s structure.
What People Are Saying
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, in a June 18 press release: “To ensure we serve the public and deliver high-quality service to the 185 million people who work and pay payroll taxes for Social Security and the 70 million beneficiaries who will receive benefits during 2025, the financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration.
“Congress, along with the Social Security Administration and others committed to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, must work together to protect and strengthen the trust funds for the millions of Americans who rely on it—now and in the future— for a secure retirement or in the event of a disability.”
From an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on July 24: “Policymakers pledging not to touch Social Security are implicitly endorsing these deep benefit cuts for 62 million retirees in 2032 and beyond. It is time for policymakers to tell the truth about the program’s finances and to pursue trust fund solutions to head off insolvency and improve the program for current and future generations.”
What Happens Next
Congress faces mounting pressure to act before the projected Social Security trust fund depletion in 2034 to avoid automatic benefit cuts. Options under discussion include tax hikes, changes to the benefit formula, or increasing the full retirement age.
Social Security predicted to run out of money sooner due to Trump bill
One organization warns that a dual-earning couple retiring in 2033 could experience a Social Security trust fund cut of $18,100.
https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-retirement-savings-benefits-money-2110258
Washington Post: Trump claims credit for fixing Social Security as it barrels to insolvency
Many of the president’s claims were misleading and ignored months of turmoil at the embattled agency.
President Donald Trump marked the 90th anniversary of Social Security on Thursday with an Oval Office signing of a proclamation that the safety net was “more resilient than ever before,” thanks to him. He claimed improvements to the program’s customer service. He also misleadingly declared that he had checked off his campaign promise to eliminate taxes on benefits for seniors.
But Social Security is barreling toward insolvency faster than before because of Trump’s tax bill and immigration policies, according to experts. The agency has faced tumult since the U.S. DOGE Service came in with a grand scheme to root out fraud and overhaul the program, causing disruptions and frustrations within the agency.
And despite the repetition of “no tax on Social Security” from Trump and his allies, the law ultimately signed by the president did not eliminate taxes on seniors’ benefits.
The Oval Office event — largely ceremonial — offered the president a chance to repeat his commitments to older Americans on the anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the Social Security Act into law. Trump was joined by Commissioner Frank Bisignano, who has led the agency since May.
“I made a sacred pledge to our seniors that I would always protect Social Security, and under this administration we’re keeping that promise and strengthening Social Security for generations to come,” Trump said.
However, Republicans have not yet provided a solution to put off Social Security’s impending shortfalls.
Natalie Ihrman, a Social Security spokeswoman, said the agency is “committed to working with Congress and other stakeholders to strengthen these vital SSA programs and continue to provide secure retirement and support in times of disability for millions of Americans.”
The trust fund will be insolvent by 2033, the program’s trustees said in June, if Congress doesn’t act. And after the passage of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the chief actuary said the law could hasten Social Security’s insolvency date.
In addition, experts have warned that Trump’s efforts to deport undocumented immigrants — who pay into the system but are barred from receiving benefits — will further deplete the program.
Penn Wharton’s budget model has projected that if the government deports 10 percent of undocumented immigrants annually over the next 10 years, Social Security will lose $133 billion in funds over that period of time.
In his comments Thursday, Trump repeated a baseless claim that immigrants were getting benefits and asserted that nearly 275,000 immigrants were removed from the agency’s rolls. The agency did not provide information about the president’s claims that immigrants were getting benefits, but it said, “SSA updated the Social Security records of about 275,000 individuals no longer holding legal status, ensuring people ineligible to receive benefits are not improperly paid.”
Most federal public benefits — such as Social Security — are available only to U.S. citizens and certain categories of legal immigrants.
Trump also praised himself for keeping a campaign promise to eliminate taxes on Social Security.
“I signed One Big Beautiful Bill and allowed no tax on Social Security for our great seniors,” Trump said.
But the law didn’t create an exemption on taxes on Social Security benefits. It added a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors who earn as much as $75,000 a year, or $12,000 for joint filers earning as much as $150,000.
Ihrman of SSA said the law “provides historic tax relief to America’s seniors.”
The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that 88 percent of older adults will not pay taxes on their benefits because of the bill, up from 64 percent under previous law.
Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said the council’s estimate relies on the assumption seniors would use their standard deduction to reduce their tax liability on Social Security benefits rather than their total income. The policy center has estimated that about half of recipients will pay at least some income taxes on their benefits.
“What he’s saying is just wrong,” Gleckman said of Trump’s claim.
Trump and Bisignano also touted achievements in customer service, specifically claiming recent reductions in wait times for the 1-800 phone line and at field offices as well as the elimination of scheduled maintenance times for the website.
Bisignano came into the agency in May after the cost-cutting U.S. DOGE Service implemented changes that led to customers complaining of dropped calls, the website repeatedly crashing and thousands of workers leaving the agency.
One of Bisignano’s early efforts to address the overwhelmed phone line was to move field office workers to answer calls.
Advocates have said it is harder to tell what customer service is like since the agency has taken down many of its public-facing performance metrics.
To trumpet the phone performance, the agency has said it reduced the “average speed to answer,” which does not count the time callers wait for a call back, even though the agency rolled out the callback feature last year.
The agency also said it cut wait times at field offices, a statistic repeated by Trump on Thursday.
That is misleading, according Jessica LaPointe, president of Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees. After the agency rolled out a new system of assigning appointments to people walking into field offices in December, the time people wait in the lobby of field offices went down because they were no longer getting their issues handled when they showed up.
“Now you wait 20 minutes in the lobby to get to the window and then you’re given an appointment and you are waiting then months to get your business finished, from start to finish,” LaPointe said.
Trump claims credit for fixing Social Security as it barrels to insolvency
Many of the president’s claims were misleading and ignore months of turmoil at the embattled agency.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/08/14/trump-social-security-90th-annniversary
Also here:
Trump claims credit for fixing Social Security as it barrels to insolvency
Many of the president’s claims were misleading and ignore months of turmoil at the embattled agency.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1Ky5eX
Related article:
LA Times: Hiltzik: Stephen Miller says Americans will live better lives without immigrants. He’s blowing smoke
Stephen Miller, the front man for Donald Trump’s deportation campaign against immigrants, took to the airwaves the other day to explain why native-born Americans will just love living in a world cleansed of undocumented workers.
“What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?” he asked on Fox News. “Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problems. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who have special needs would get all the attention that they needed. … There would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug deaths.” Etc., etc.
No one can dispute that the world Miller described on Fox would be a paradise on Earth. No waiting at the ER? School districts flush with cash? No drug deaths? But that doesn’t obscure that pretty much every word Miller uttered was fiction.
Trump aide Stephen Miller concocts a fantasy about L.A.
The gist of Miller’s spiel — in fact, the worldview that he has been espousing for years — is that “illegal aliens” are responsible for all those ills, and exclusively responsible. It’s nothing but a Trumpian fantasy.
Let’s take a look, starting with overcrowding at the ER.
The issue has been the focus of numerous studies and surveys. Overwhelmingly, they conclude that undocumented immigration is irrelevant to ER overcrowding. In fact, immigrants generally and undocumented immigrants in particular are less likely to get their healthcare at the emergency room than native-born Americans.
In California, according to a 2014 study from UCLA, “one in five U.S.-born adults visits the ER annually, compared with roughly one in 10 undocumented adults — approximately half the rate of U.S.-born residents.”
Among the reasons, explained Nadereh Pourat, the study’s lead author and director of research at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, was fear of being asked to provide documents.
The result is that undocumented individuals avoid seeking any healthcare until they become critically ill. The UCLA study found that undocumented immigrants’ average number of doctor visits per year was lower than for other cohorts: 2.3 for children and 1.7 for adults, compared with 2.8 doctor visits for U.S.-born children and 3.2 for adults.
ER overcrowding is an issue of long standing in the U.S., but it’s not the result of an influx of undocumented immigrants. It’s due to a confluence of other factors, including the tendency of even insured patients to use the ER as a primary care center, presenting with complicated or chronic ailments for which ER medicine is not well-suited.
While caseloads at emergency departments have surged, their capacities are shrinking.
According to a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences, from 1993 to 2003 the U.S. population grew by 12%, hospital admissions by 13% and ER visits by 26%. “Not only is [emergency department] volume increasing, but patients coming to the ED are older and sicker and require more complex and time-consuming workups and treatments,” the report observed. “During this same period, the United States experienced a net loss of 703 hospitals, 198,000 hospital beds, and 425 hospital EDs, mainly in response to cost-cutting measures.”
President Trump’s immigration policies during his first term suppressed the use of public healthcare facilities by undocumented immigrants and their families. The key policy was the administration’s tightening of the “public charge” rule, which applies to those seeking admission to the United States or hoping to upgrade their immigration status.
The rule, which has been part of U.S. immigration policy for more than a century, allowed immigration authorities to deny entry — or deny citizenship applications of green card holders — to anyone judged to become a recipient of public assistance such as welfare (today known chiefly as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF) or other cash assistance programs.
Until Trump, healthcare programs such as Medicaid, nutrition programs such as food stamps, and subsidized housing programs weren’t part of the public charge test.
Even before Trump implemented the change but after a draft version leaked out, clinics serving immigrant communities across California and nationwide detected a marked drop off in patients.
A clinic on the edge of Boyle Heights in Los Angeles that had been serving 12,000 patients, I reported in 2018, saw monthly patient enrollments fall by about one-third after Trump’s 2016 election, and an additional 25% after the leak. President Biden rescinded the Trump rule within weeks of taking office.
Undocumented immigrants are sure to be less likely to access public healthcare services, such as those available at emergency rooms, as a result of Trump’s rescinding “sensitive location” restrictions on immigration agents that had been in effect at least since 2011.
That policy barred almost all immigration enforcement actions at schools, places of worship, funerals and weddings, public marches or rallies, and hospitals. Trump rescinded the policy on inauguration day in January.
The goal was for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents “to make substantial efforts to avoid unnecessarily alarming local communities,” agency officials stated. Today, as public shows of force and public raids by ICE have demonstrated, instilling alarm in local communities appears to be the goal.
The change in the sensitive locations policy has prompted hospital and ER managers to establish formal procedures for staff confronted with the arrival of immigration agents.
A model policy drafted by the Emergency Medicine Residents Assn. says staff should request identification and a warrant or other document attesting to the need for the presence of agents. It urges staff to determine whether the agents are enforcing a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) or administrative warrant (issued by ICE). The latter doesn’t grant agents access to private hospital areas such as patient rooms or operating areas.
What about school funding? Is Miller right to assert that mass deportations will free up a torrent of funding and cutting class sizes in half? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Most school funding in California and most other places is based on attendance. In California, the number of immigrant children in the schools was 189,634 last year. The total K-12 population was 5,837,700, making the immigrant student body 3.25% of the total. Not half.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the estimated 30,000 children from immigrant families amounted to about 7.35% of last year’s enrollment of 408,083. Also not half.
With the deportation of immigrant children, the schools would lose whatever federal funding was attached to their attendance. Schools nationwide receive enhanced federal funding for English learners and other immigrants. That money, presumably, would disappear if the pupils go.
What Miller failed to mention on Fox is the possible impact of the Trump administration’s determination to shutter the Department of Education, placing billions of dollars of federal funding at risk. California receives more than $16 billion a year in federal aid to K-12 schools through that agency. Disabled students are at heightened risk of being deprived of resources if the agency is dismantled.
Then there’s fentanyl. The Trump administration’s claim that undocumented immigrants are major players in this crisis appears to be just another example of its scapegoating of immigrants. The vast majority of fentanyl-related criminal convictions — nearly 90% — are of U.S. citizens. The rest included both legally present and undocumented immigrants. (The statistics comes from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.)
In other words, deport every immigrant in the United States, and you still won’t have made a dent in fentanyl trafficking, much less eliminate all drug deaths.
What are we to make of Miller’s spiel about L.A.? At one level, it’s echt Miller: The portrayal of the city as a putative hellscape, larded with accusations of complicity between the city leadership and illegal immigrants — “the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and criminal aliens,” he said, with zero pushback from his Fox News interlocutor.
At another level, it’s a malevolent expression of white privilege. In Miller’s ideology, the only obstacles to the return to a drug-free world of frictionless healthcare and abundantly financed education are immigrants. This ideology depends on the notion that immigrants are raiding the public purse by sponging on public services.
The fact is that most undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for most such services. They can’t enroll in Medicare, receive premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, or collect Social Security or Medicare benefits (though typically they submit falsified Social Security numbers to employers, so payments for the program are deducted from their paychecks).
A 2013 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that low-income immigrants use public benefits for which they’re eligible, such as food stamps, “at a lower rate than native-born low-income residents.”
If there’s an impulse underlying the anti-immigrant project directed by Miller other than racism, it’s hard to detect.
Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who last week blocked federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in Los Angeles, ruled that during their “roving patrols” in Los Angeles, ICE agents detained individuals principally because of their race, that they were overheard speaking Spanish or accented English, that they were doing work associated with undocumented immigrants, or were in locations frequented by undocumented immigrants seeking day work.
Miller goes down the same road as ICE — indeed, by all accounts, he’s the motivating spirit behind the L.A. raids. Because he can’t justify the raids, he has ginned up a fantasy of immigrants disrupting our healthcare and school programs, and the corollary fantasy that evicting them all will produce an Earthly paradise for the rest of us. Does anybody really believe that?
Raw Story: ‘Treating him like a moron who can’t read’: Expert fed up with excuses for Trump
Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky is losing her patience with people trying to give President Donald Trump an “out” to blame others for what some view as bad policies in his “big, beautiful” budget legislation.
Speaking to MSNBC’s Chris Jansing on Monday, Roginsky said, “Why Republicans are killing healthcare for millions doesn’t really matter. What really matters is what they’re doing.”
“They’re cutting health care to about 12 million Americans in the next several years. They’re shutting down rural hospitals. They’re getting rid of the social safety net. They’re ballooning the deficit to the point that it will imperil Medicare, Social Security and so on,” she said. “They’re getting rid of food assistance. They’re getting rid of every single aspect of the safety net and the social net that Donald Trump promised to keep. And don’t forget, he promised that he would not touch Medicaid, and he promised he wouldn’t touch Medicare. And he’s touching both of those.”
Jansing asked if Roginsky thought Trump knows what’s going on, implying he’s being lied to about what’s in the bill.
“Why do we keep treating him like a moron who can’t read?” ranted Roginsky.
Washington Post: Records of dead people show how the pro-Trump spin machine keeps going
Supporters cite a prosaic DOGE announcement as evidence that a Social Security problem that never existed has been fixed.
The big lie:
“We’re also identifying shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security program for our seniors, and that our seniors and people that we love rely on. Believe it or not, government databases list … 3.47 million people from ages 120 to 129, 3.9 million people from ages 130 to 139. 3.5 million people from ages 140 to 149. And money is being paid to many of them.”
— President Donald Trump, in a speech to Congress, March 4
The simple explanation:
Social Security databases rely on COBOL, a nearly 70-year-old computer programming language, and COBOL doesn’t have a standardized way to store dates. So a default date, such as 1875, was chosen for people lacking birth information.
But Trump and his cronies will never let a good lie go unrepeated, every chance they can.
Analysis | Records of dead people show how the pro-Trump spin machine keeps going
Supporters cite a prosaic DOGE announcement as evidence that a Social Security problem that never existed has been fixed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/03/social-security-dead-trump-false
New York Times: Trump Pardoned Tax Cheat After Mother Attended $1 Million Dinner
Paul Walczak’s pardon application cited his mother’s support for the president, including raising millions of dollars and a connection to a plot to publicize a Biden family diary.
As Paul Walczak awaited sentencing early this year, his best hope for avoiding prison time rested with the newly inaugurated president.
Mr. Walczak, a former nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax crimes days after the 2024 election, submitted a pardon application to President Trump around Inauguration Day. The application focused not solely on Mr. Walczak’s offenses but also on the political activity of his mother, Elizabeth Fago.
Ms. Fago had raised millions of dollars for Mr. Trump’s campaigns and those of other Republicans, the application said. It also highlighted her connections to an effort to sabotage Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 2020 campaign by publicizing the addiction diary of his daughter Ashley Biden — an episode that drew law enforcement scrutiny.
Mr. Walczak’s pardon application argued that his criminal prosecution was motivated more by his mother’s efforts for Mr. Trump than by his admitted use of money earmarked for employees’ taxes to fund an extravagant lifestyle.
Still, weeks went by and no pardon was forthcoming, even as Mr. Trump issued clemency grants to hundreds of other allies.
Then, Ms. Fago was invited to a $1-million-per-person fund-raising dinner last month that promised face-to-face access to Mr. Trump at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla.
…
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/us/politics/trump-pardon-paul-walczak-tax-crimes.html
Irish Star: Elon Musk embarrassed as Social Security ‘fraud’ claim debunked by new data
Musk and fellow DOGE proponents’ assertions about revamping Social Security due to colossal fraud losses have been met with skepticism.
Fortune reports that Doge’s bid to transform the government’s main safety-net program, citing claims of it hemorrhaging vast sums to fraud, despite Musk’s team being denied permission to view official documents.
Musk, who had a humiliating screaming match with a Trump official, has boldly claimed that his team has unearthed weekly fraudulent entitlement payments totaling a staggering $100 billion, calling the situation ‘utterly insane. ‘
During an April Fox News interview, Social Security department staffer Aram Moghaddassi concurred with Musk’s sentiment, stating that 40% of calls they receive about altering direct-deposit data are from tricksters.
…
However, according to Fortune – which referenced a government technology-focused news source, the actual frequency of phone-related fraud is minuscule, barely exceeding a fraction of 1%.
Nextgov/FCW snagged an internal scoop revealing that out of 110,000 Social Security claims, merely two have been identified as highly probable for fraud. The tech news site indicates less than 1% of claims are even slightly suspicious for fraudulent activity.
Elon Musk embarrassed as Social Security ‘fraud’ claim debunked by new data
Claims from Elon Musk and the Department of Government Employees (DOGE) that the Social Security program is losing billions of dollars, despite Musk being blocked from viewing official files, to fraud are being challenged by new data
https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/elon-musk-social-security-doge-35277349
Explícame: DOGE must delete the Social Security data in its possession as well as the software it installed
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been ordered to immediately delete all Social Security data in its possession, along with the software it installed on the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) systems. This directive comes from federal district judge Ellen Hollander, marking a significant moment in the ongoing battle for privacy rights in the United States. The ruling serves as a stern rebuke to DOGE’s methods, which were justified under the guise of fraud prevention.
The decision, as reported by The (Raleigh) News & Observer, follows a lawsuit initiated by unions and retiree organizations. These groups argued that DOGE’s access to sensitive SSA records violated privacy laws and jeopardized the security of highly confidential data. The court’s ruling highlights the tension between government oversight and individual privacy rights.
Judge Hollander’s resolution was unequivocal: “Rooting out potential fraud, waste and mismanagement at SSA is in the public interest. But that doesn’t mean the government can break the law to do it”. She criticized the rationale provided by SSA’s interim commissioner, Leland Dudek, deeming it insufficient to justify such intrusive access.
The court not only denied DOGE’s request for unlimited data access but also mandated corrective actions: “DOGE must delete the Social Security data in its possession as well as the software it installed,” as covered by The (Raleigh) News & Observer. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding privacy against overreach.