SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR CROSSES THE LINE

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, reposted from Facebook, July 5, 2025- I find it EXTREMELY inappropriate that the head of the Social Security Administration would send me a news release applauding the passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). 

The SSA should not comment on the passage of legislation, regardless of its impact.  The SSA is not a political institution. It is there to implement the laws, not judge them, one way or the other. Beyond that, some of the reasoning the SSA administrator uses in his celebration of the OBBB is sad. That which is not sad is false. 

“The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits,” SSA administrator Frank Bisignano reports with glee.  

He continues, “The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.”   I think he’s counting the same thing twice here, but that’s not my problem with his statement.

“Most” retirees. Not all. That’s the new GOP way. The only way Republicans ever cut spending is by increasing the means-testing on programs created by Democrats without means-testing (to get them to pass with Republican support). Republicans later means-tested them, and now, anytime they are faced with the need to cut spending, they means test them more. Republicans have become a one-trick, means-testing pony.  That pony can only carry so much.  It’s not a mule!

Bisignano continues in his emailed news released, “By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned."

Now that’s an outright lie. The tax on SS retirement benefits, passed as part of Reagan’s “fix” in the 1980s, went directly into the SS Trust Fund to stretch out the insolvency date of the program. The OBBB will move up that date, which has already moved up to 2033 from earlier projections of 2035. 

So now, the SSA, a non-political institution, has entered the political debate by (1) declaring the administrator’s abiding support of further means-testing (Boo!!!) and (2) spreading false information, via email, to Social Security beneficiaries. 

I hope I’m not along in finding this unacceptable.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Rods Comment: I totally agree! It is an outrage that Social Security is being politicalized. This is common however in authoritarian systems where there is little separation between the party in power and the government. Unfortunately, I expect more of this as we continue down this authoritarian path.

I also received the SS press release. I am posting it below.

Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans. The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy. “This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned." The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned. Social Security remains committed to providing timely, accurate information to the public and will continue working closely with federal partners to ensure beneficiaries understand how this legislation may affect them.

Top Stories

THE END IS NEAR

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, reposted from Facebook, July 2, 2025 -The insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds is the single most predictable (and long-predicted) fiscal crisis in the history of the United States.  

Shortly after the Greenspan Commission, appointed by President Reagan, “saved” Social Security by raising the payroll tax, taxing benefits for the first time (in a means-tested way) and gradually raising the standard retirement age from 65 to 67, the trustees have released annual predictions about how long the Reagan rescue would last. 

The projected insolvency date has not changed much over the last four decades. It did change by one year recently, after a government-orchestrated dance with inflation, blamed on Covid-19 triggered the biggest monthly COLA increase since Reagan's dogged inflation. 

And now, the end is near. And so, we face the final curtain. My friends, I’ll say it clear. I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain. 

If President Trump doesn’t do it, and it appears unlikely that he will, the next president will do something about it, either in his first or second term. He won’t be able to avoid it. The end will not be near. It will be here. 

That assumes we have not already defaulted on our debt by then and the unstoppable force of the U.S. credit worthiness will be stopped by the immovable object of a bond market that slices up our credit card, which the silly monetary money theory people think has no limit. 

If he does it in his first term, he will do it expecting to be a one-term president, which makes it more likely that he will do it in his second term, which could make it more expensive for us – both those who pay for and those who receive the benefits. 

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial this morning, wrote “If lawmakers acted tomorrow, restoring Social Security’s long-term solvency would require a 22% benefit cut for current and future beneficiaries, a payroll tax increase to 16%, up from the current 12%, or a combination of benefit cuts and tax hikes. If we waited until the trust fund was depleted, we would have to cut benefits by nearly 26%, or the payroll tax would have to rise to nearly 17%.”

NEITHER OF THOSE WILL HAPPEN

Because this was the most predictable economic fiscal crisis in history, I started warning about it when I first noticed it, which was when Jim DeMint was first running for Congress.  He and I created separate plans to reform Social Security by slowly transforming it from a pension system to a 401(k)-type system.  Only two people reading this, Marianna Leahy and Rick Tate, will remember that. 

In my plan, the same amount of money would be extracted from paychecks, and it would be mandatory, just like payroll taxes, but eventually, it would all go into a 401(k) plan instead of a pension plan.  I would have phased it in over 20 years to accommodate people who were closer to retirement at that time.  

DeMint’s plan was much less aggressive than mine, never converting completely into a 401(k)-type plan - always remaining a hybrid.  The Heritage Foundation, former President Bush, and a lot of states adopted something close to DeMint’s plan and ran with it, but 9-11 ended all talk of reforming Social Security– probably forever.  

The system is too close to insolvency to reform without increasing our nearly $2 trillion annual deficit to $3 instantly, and that would hasten the explosion of the debt bomb, the fuse of which is lit, but no-one knows it’s length, and no-one has had the courage, so far, to jump on it. 

When I introduced my plan to reform Social Security, I also predicted what would happen if we didn’t. That prediction has not changed.  I predicted that rather than significantly reducing benefits or increasing payroll taxes, Congress would simply convert Social Security into a partial welfare system, supported both by the flatter payroll tax and the increasingly progressive income tax, with more and more burden placed on the income tax. 

Instead of either reducing benefits 22% or increasing payroll by 17%, Congress will make up most of the difference with higher income taxes on an increasingly narrow band of the nation’s wealthy and even more borrowing, which will hasten the next, and much bigger crisis, the explosion of the debt bomb. 

Yes, there were times I'm sure they knew, they bit off more than they could chew. But through it all when there was doubt, they chewed it up and spit it out.  The record shows, they dodged the blow, and kicked it your way.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on  Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Nashville’s Mayor Would Rather Not Be Tangled in an Immigration Fight

by Rod Williams, July 1, 2025-After the ICE raids in Nashville last month, Mayor O'Connell expressed his disapproval of the raids and apparently inadvertently published the names of ICE agents. In response Rep. Andy Ogles launched a probe of the mayor's actions.  

Mayor O'Connell has released a slew of documents in response to the federal inquiry and the investigation continues demanded more documents, including communications related to Executive Order 30, which required city employees to report ICE interactions. It looks like Ogles in on a fishing expedition. 

I agree with those who say that the names of ICE agents should not be published, and Mayor O'Connell did that. However, from what I have gathered from news reports and from what the mayor has said, it appears that the names were already public records and that the mayor published them inadvertently. He has apologized. Maybe he should have been more cautious and slower to respond and that mistake could have been avoided. 

In addition to the publishing of names of ICE agents, the other thing the Congressional inquiry is looking at is The Belonging Fund. This private fund helps immigrants in time of crisis. If an illegal immigrant is picked up and deporting or put in long-term detention, the fund may step in and help meet the immediate needs of the left behind family of the immigrant with things like rent, utilities and food. The Ogles probe is seeking to determine if any public funds were used to fund that fund. If they were, I would agree that that is inappropriate. I would find it inappropriate because I don't think any public funds should go to any non-profit without going through a transparent process. 

I am not a fan of Mayor O'Connell. In the most recent mayoral race, I contributed money to and worked for his opponent. I am opposed to his recent tax hike. However, in this recent controversy, my sympathies are with the mayor.  I also share the mayor's concern about unidentified masked people stopping and snatching people and retaining them simply because they look Hispanic. The vendetta against Mayor O'Connell seems to be out of proportion to what the major did. Other than publishing those names, it appears that O'Connell did nothing inappropriate. The mayor expressed his opinion in opposition the raids. That should not be against the law.  

Below are news reports spreading more light on the topic.

Nashville’s Mayor Would Rather Not Be Tangled in an Immigration Fight

By Emily Cochrane, New York Times, June 24, 2025-  Mayor Freddie O’Connell of Nashville would rather be talking about the state of the sidewalks. New traffic signals. Even the increase in the property tax rate. Instead, he has been busy addressing the fallout from a round of federal immigration raids last month in his liberal-leaning city.

First, angry residents accused city officials of helping federal agents detain more than 100 people during the raids, which Mr. O’Connell, a first-term Democrat, quickly denied. After the outcry, he ordered city departments to let his office know about any outreach from immigration agents; he also expressed support for a community fund that seeks private donations for immigrant families.

Tennessee Republicans then demanded investigations into whether the mayor had violated state law. The state has banned local governments from adopting “sanctuary city” policies, which it describes as limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement and giving undocumented immigrants “the right to lawful presence.”

Mr. O’Connell drew more Republican wrath when his office published the names of some immigration agents who had contacted the city. He has maintained that the names were published accidentally because they were in public records, including summaries of emergency calls.

The city has since removed the names and denies violating state law. Nonetheless, two congressional committees are investigating the effect of Nashville’s policies on federal immigration enforcement.

The backlash demonstrates how Mr. O’Connell, 48, is caught between the laws of his deeply Republican state and the progressive leanings of many of his constituents. It is perhaps the biggest test yet of his cautious pragmatism, at a moment when local leaders are on the front lines of the Trump administration’s aggressive overhaul of federal policy.

.... Mr. O’Connell, far more a policy wonk than a progressive firebrand, has intentionally avoided becoming a resistance figure in office. He has focused his criticism of the raids on the refusal of immigration officials to disclose whom they detained and why.

In the interview, he expressed some exasperation that “a tempest in a teapot” over his recent order requiring city departments to share knowledge about federal immigration outreach was grabbing local attention, rather than the budget he just signed or the impact of proposed federal cuts on Nashville, a diverse city of just over 700,000.

... Mr. Ogles is a leading member of the deeply conservative House Freedom Caucus. He has leveled the loudest attacks against Mr. O’Connell, accusing him of intimidating immigration officials with his recent executive order and enabling criminal behavior by not supporting President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The mayor’s “embrace of sanctuary lawlessness in Tennessee may very well be criminal,” Mr. Ogles said in a statement, calling Mr. O’Connell “a rogue mayor.” The documents that the mayor’s office turned over to Congress last week, Mr. Ogles added, “open multiple avenues of inquiry and raise serious questions the mayor must answer.” He did not provide details.

.... The mayor has also felt some heat from left-leaning constituents who say he could be doing more to openly support Nashville’s immigrant population. But now that Mr. Ogles is investigating Mr. O’Connell, some critics declined to publicly air their frustrations with the mayor, saying that they did not wish to undermine him or invite broader criticism. (read it all)

The below video is sympathetic to the Department of Homeland Security and Andy Ogles in this conflict with Mayor O'Connell but nevertheless is a good summary and is informative.

Top Stories