Improving Military Benefits, Relaxing Energy Regulations and Increasing Aviation Regulations

3 min read

Improving Military BenefitsVeterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2025 (S 2392) – This Act was introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) on July 23. It passed in the Senate on Nov. 9, the House on Nov. 17, and was signed into law on Nov. 25. The purpose of this bill is to increase rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities, as well as the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. The rate hikes became effective on Dec. 1.

Fairness for Servicemembers and their Families Act of 2025 (HR 970) – This bipartisan Act was introduced on Feb. 4 by Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-WA). It authorizes increases to servicemember and veteran life insurance packages in order to account for inflation and higher costs of living. It passed in the House on April 7, in the Senate on Nov. 20, and was enacted by the President on Dec. 12.

Veteran Fraud Reimbursement Act of 2025 (HR 1912) – The Veterans Benefits Administration has experienced negligence and fraud that have prevented many veterans from receiving benefits. In the past, the case-by-case system of investigation into misuse led to further delays; in some cases, veterans passed away before ever receiving remuneration. The purpose of this bill is to allow the Veterans Benefits Administration to reimburse victims of fraud via a streamlined process, so that the investigation occurs after the affected veterans have been reimbursed. The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) on March 6, passed in the House on May 5, in the Senate on Nov. 20, and was signed into law on Dec. 12.

SPEED Act (HR 4776) – The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to streamline the existing environmental analysis requirements for energy projects (e.g., offshore drilling, mining, pipeline development). Provisions include reducing litigation challenges to a 150-day challenge window, developing standardized federal action criteria, and defining procedural deadlines. The Act was introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) on July 25 and passed in the House on Dec. 18. Its fate currently rests with the Senate.

ROTOR Act (S 2503) – Prompted by multiple incidents this year, including military aircraft such as the Washington, D.C., helicopter collision, this bipartisan bill seeks to improve aviation safety and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight. The legislation would specifically require all aircraft to incorporate ADS-B technology, which displays nearby planes and weather data on cockpit screens. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on July 29. It passed in the Senate on Dec. 17 and awaits consideration by the House.

Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act (HR 6703) – Sponsored by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), this healthcare bill proposes expanding association health plans, increasing transparency requirements for pharmacy benefit managers, and funding some cost-sharing reductions for qualifying Health Insurance Marketplace enrollees. It does not include extending the enhanced premium tax credits that expired on Dec. 31, 2025. The bill was introduced on Dec. 15 and passed in the House on Dec. 17. Its fate now lies with the Senate.

Accounting for Net Charge Offs

3 min read

Accounting for Net Charge OffsWhen it comes it understanding a net charge-off (NCO), it’s the difference between any recovery of delinquent debt and gross charge-offs a business sees in a defined accounting time frame. NCOs are debts a company projects with a low likelihood of being collected. It can happen when a customer stops paying outstanding invoices or sees a decline in their credit rating.  

The first step considers it as a gross charge-off; if any amount is recovered, it’s subtracted to arrive at net charge-offs. If businesses can recover a percentage of what’s been charged off, the recovered monies can be net against the gross charge-offs to realize net charge-offs. A business’ loan loss provision is lowered by the net charge-off amount at the end of the accounting time frame and then refilled for the next accounting time frame based on new estimates for loan losses. This is part of a business’ provision for credit losses (PCL) that projects a certain percentage of accounts unable to be collected.

Accounting in Detail

The following formula calculates net charge-offs (NCO). This assumes a gross charge-off booking of 6 percent of all outstanding loans, with 1 percent ultimately being recovered during a particular accounting time frame.

Net Charge-Offs = Gross Charge-Offs – Amount of Recovered Debt

= 6 percent – 1 percent = 5 percent

Once the figure is calculated, the 1 percent collected adjusts the loan loss provision in the accounting statements.

Financial Institutions Illustrate Accounting Considerations

Banks’ business models and financials demonstrate their ability to pay their depositors competitive interest rates while also being able to make loans. Since banks earn profits via net interest margin, earning a spread between what banks pay depositors on interest rates and what borrowers are charged on loans, the spread is integral to measuring profitability. To generate the total value of a bank’s balance sheet, it’s imperative for banks to estimate and project their charge-offs as accurately as possible.

Financial institutions determine credit loss provisions by analyzing their balance sheets and the level of risk represented by outstanding loans. They look at the ratio of loan losses to overall losses, which is their net charge-off rate. The net charge-off rate is used to evaluate a loan’s book quality against other banks.

How Different Risks Impact Net Charge-Off Levels

Banks that have different loan mixes will see different risk and reward payoffs. If one bank offers primarily secured loans, while it may have lower net interest margins, it will also have lower charge-offs because the collateral backing them is less risky overall. This is compared to other lenders that have a higher level of unsecured loans, such as credit cards and commercial loans. This scenario, in the case of riskier loans, may result in higher net interest margins, but also greater potential for higher losses.

Journal Entry Examples

The following journal entries illustrate how to account for bad debts. Using the direct write-off method, when debt collection efforts have been exhausted, bad debts are recorded as follows:

Expenses for bad debt: Debit $750

Accounts Receivable: Credit $750

If, however, the business recovers anything from the customer’s outstanding invoices, the following journal entries would be added if $200 were received:

Cash: Debit $200

Accounts Receivable: Credit $200

Conclusion

While this is primarily for early-stage companies with a low percentage of credit sales, it illustrates how businesses can update their books when projecting their numbers to account for net charge-offs.

What Seniors Actually Got in the Latest Tax Bill

4 min read

What Seniors Actually Got in the Latest Tax Bill, SS CreditCampaign messaging would have you believe retirees just scored a major victory. The talking point is everywhere: Social Security benefits are now tax-free. But anyone who reads the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will discover something different. The legislation contains nothing that removes Social Security from federal taxation. Zero provisions. The tax structure that has applied to benefits for over four decades remains fully intact.

So, what did pass? A new deduction aimed at older Americans. And through some rhetorical gymnastics, that deduction is being sold as something it fundamentally is not.

A Deduction Is Not an Exemption

The OBBBA creates an additional deduction exclusively for seniors. Single filers get $6,000 while married couples receive $12,000. This stacks on top of what they already claim through the standard deduction, lowering their overall taxable income.

For retirees whose financial situation falls in a particular range, this extra write-off might be enough to cancel out whatever portion of their Social Security would normally face taxation. But here’s the catch: the deduction applies to all income equally. It doesn’t single out retirement benefits for protection. If your earnings came entirely from investments or a workplace pension, the math would work identically.

Decades of Unchanged Rules

Federal taxation of Social Security benefits dates back to 1983. President Reagan signed that change with support from both parties, making up to half of benefits taxable for seniors with higher earnings. Then in 1993, Congress and President Clinton pushed the ceiling higher. Under current rules, as much as 85 percent of benefits can count toward taxable income for upper-income retirees.

None of that changed with this bill.

The thresholds determining who pays what have remained frozen since the Clinton era. Single filers earning under $25,000 and couples under $32,000 owe nothing on their benefits. Those in the middle tier face taxes on up to half. And couples bringing in more than $44,000 can see 85 percent of their Social Security added to their taxable total.

Because these cutoffs have never adjusted for inflation, more retirees get pulled into taxable categories every single year. The OBBBA leaves this problem completely unaddressed.

Looking at the Administration’s Own Math

Treasury Department calculations highlighted by the White House reveal how limited the benefit truly is. Picture a single retiree receiving $40,000 annually from Social Security alongside another $40,000 from retirement accounts like an IRA or 401(k). Current law would put their 2026 tax bill at $7,190. Under the new legislation, the amount drops to $5,685, a reduction of roughly $1,500. The senior deduction accounts for approximately $900 of those savings.

Helpful? Sure. But this person still owes thousands in federal taxes. Their Social Security benefits remain part of the calculation. The deduction simply chips away at overall liability without treating retirement benefits any differently than other income sources.

Temporary Relief with Built-In Limits

Unlike corporate tax provisions and cuts benefiting wealthy taxpayers, which received permanent status in the bill, the senior deduction disappears after 2028. It was written with an expiration date from the start.

Income limits further narrow who benefits. Single filers with earnings above $75,000 and married couples exceeding $150,000 see the deduction phase-out entirely. Ironically, these higher-earning retirees facing the steepest Social Security taxation are exactly the ones shut out from this supposed fix.

Conclusion and Why This Framing Succeeds

Announcing a supplemental deduction for older taxpayers generates little excitement. Declaring that Social Security taxation has ended makes waves. Political strategists understand that most people absorb information through headlines rather than legislative analysis. Few voters examine IRS guidance or compare statutory language.

The outcome is clever stagecraft masquerading as meaningful reform. Benefits remain taxable under the same formulas established decades ago. Inflation continues to drag more retirees across taxation thresholds, and this temporary, income-restricted deduction is merely wrapped in revolutionary packaging.