Here is how this works: Someone turning 73 in 2025 needs to take an RMD for 2025, but has the option to delay this until April of 2026.  You're right in that if one does opt to wait until April of 2026, then they would be taking 2025 and 2026 in the calendar year 2026 and paying ordinary income tax on both in that year.  Often, it makes sense to take the first-year RMD during the Calendar year to have taxation remain even each year.   There can be circumstances otherwise, like a large tax liability already incurred in the first RMD year, for example.  As far as the amount, it's the uniform RMD schedule for each year at year-end balance (2025 based on YE 2024 value and 2026 based on year-end 2025 balance).  
~ Brian T. Szytel, July 10, 2025

We do not believe that 'a day of reckoning' is very specific or actionable, or that “3-6 years” is a very helpful timeline. In fact, the difference between 3 and 6 years is enough to be broke for many people who decide to exit the right portfolio three years too soon. We do not agree that there is some specific, singular “looming” event that can be timed, predicted, or known. Rather, we believe there are dozens and dozens of various events that will most certainly happen, because such disruptions to markets are a permanent part of the investing process. And our aim is to have the right portfolio in place for each individual client, aware of the reality of these things, and to never, ever believe that any perma-bear, or any other forecaster, can or does know anything about what exactly will happen or when. We design portfolios with the assumption that such negative things are assured, not merely possible, and we do not exit a good portfolio that was designed for volatility because of volatility. We embrace it. Adjustments are made around macro allocation and composition holdings along the way, in conjunction with our investment process.

In a lot of ways, the question can be answered about the propriety of future debt concerns with a look at the past. In 1989, the national debt was $900 billion, the 10-year treasury yield was 9%, and the Dow was 2,500. Today, the national debt is $37 trillion, the 10-year is 4%, and the Dow is 45,000. It has not been the 35 years that such outlooks would have called for. Same as it ever was. Dividend growth is a blend of offense and defense coupled to a tailored asset allocation for each individual client that we believe in.
~ David L. Bahnsen, July 9, 2025

Your point is sort of true in theory but not at all true in practice… In other words, I get it, and wish that were true, but there is no precedent – ever – not a single one – of the Fed chair not carrying the day on monetary policy. The governors (FOMC voting members) have a deeply respected tradition, albeit unwritten, of deference to the chair.
~ David L. Bahnsen, July 8, 2025

I do not think there is added stability coming from the bill being passed because I do not think there was measurable economic instability from the bill not being passed, in the sense that I think markets always knew some bill was going to be passed. On the margin, there is more stability now than there was four days ago, but it is minimal. This leaves us to measure your last question on the merits of the bill itself.

(1) Extension of tax rates from 2017 – always believed to be inevitable – a positive
(2) Lack of interaction with long-term deficit spending levels – a negative
(3) Some of the business tax aspects of the bill – a positive
~ David L. Bahnsen, July 7, 2025