Possibly very true. Also possibly very true: The US might need to strike actual gold to afford it. 

Nevertheless, Donald Trump has emphasized his desire to find new places to cut taxes in order to generate real economic growth. Those ideas are also clearly aimed at finding inroads into traditional Democrat constituencies. A proposal to end taxes on tips has a lot of appeal for low-income servers, who are likely younger voters, and both are key demos for Kamala Harris and other Democrats. It didn't woo the culinary union leaders, but it might appeal to their members.

His latest proposal clearly has the New York Times worried that Trump has found a mark, too. Trump has proposed ending taxes on Social Security payments entirely, a long-sought policy change by AARP and other senior interest groups. And this proposal will be tough to oppose by Harris and Tim Walz -- especially Walz:

First it was a tax cut for hotel and restaurant workers in Nevada, a swing state where Donald J. Trump proposed exempting tips from taxes. Then, in front of powerful chief executives gathered in Washington, Mr. Trump floated cutting the corporate tax rate, helping to ease concerns in the business community about his candidacy.

Now Mr. Trump is calling for an end to taxing Social Security benefits, which could be a boon for retirees, one of the most politically important groups in the United States.

It's such a politically potent idea that it's amazing no one has proposed it until now!

Oh, wait ... As the NYT goes on to explain, it has been proposed before --- by Democrats. And one Democrat in particular managed to get that policy implemented for state income taxes. Wanna guess who? Let's not always see the same hands ...

Still, there is bipartisan support for the concept. Some House Democrats introduced legislation earlier this year that would stop taxing Social Security benefits, while also raising payroll taxes on higher-income Americans to fund the program.

As governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, whom Vice President Kamala Harris selected as her 2024 running mate, signed legislation that exempted Social Security payments from state taxes for many seniors. 

That will make it difficult for Harris or Walz to argue against the proposal. Not that it's necessarily difficult to find such arguments, however, especially regarding fiscal stability. First, as the NYT points out, that would eliminate $1.8 trillion in revenue over the next decade, when the US is running massive annual deficits that keep adding more national debt to an overloaded plate. Trump himself has criticized the Biden administration's rapid expansion of deficits in this campaign.

Second, as former Social Security trustee Charles Blahous wrote yesterday, that lost income will destabilize the fund on which the benefits depend. Trump's proposal would also likely benefit those who need relief least, since the current system already shields low-income seniors to some extent:

Of the 85% of benefits subject to income tax, 50% goes to Social Security and 35% to Medicare Hospital Insurance. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has calculated that eliminating these would worsen shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance by 25% and 170%, respectively. It would make the latter insolvent by 2030, six years earlier than expected. ...

Excluding Social Security benefits from taxation would also be regressive. It would do nothing for the 60% of seniors who already pay no income taxes on their benefits and channel gains to the top 40% by income. Consider, too, that for the past few decades, the median wealth for Americans in their 60s and 70s has grown dramatically, while younger adults’ has lagged behind.

The political appeal of nixing taxes—especially for old people, who have a high propensity to vote—is obvious. Yet doing so would violate the principle of equal taxation for equal income, worsen Social Security and Medicare’s financial woes, and transfer more income to wealthier households. If we care about Social Security and Medicare and those who depend on them, the status quo should prevail.

This could still work -- if it came with a significant restructuring of both Social Security and Medicare. That is already long overdue, but neither party wants to take ownership of any such plan. George W. Bush tried to advance a restructuring plan in 2005 (with Blahous as one of the advisers, IIRC), but Democrats demagogued it so badly that it never went anywhere. When Paul Ryan tried again a few years later, Democrats ran ads depicting him pushing a wheelchair-bound grandma off of a cliff. Trump has refused to even consider reforming either program, let alone both, so this would be simply the kind of revenue cut that Blahous warns about. 

That may make it tough to pass in Congress, but it's a lot easier to pass tax cuts than reforms that cost voters benefits and money. And having raised the expectation, seniors and activists will expect Trump to deliver:

Bill Sweeney, the senior vice president for government affairs at AARP, said any changes to Social Security should protect the program’s finances. He added that his group’s members were not shy about their distaste for taxes on Social Security.

That, of course, depends on Trump winning the election. And that's precisely what he wants seniors to understand too when they decide which candidate to support. The NYT understands this as well, which is why they're worried that this tax proposal might have struck gold.