Social Security on the Ballot

Candidate Trump assured voters that he would not touch Social Security. In fact, he and his appointees have man-handled it administratively in the past 18 months, removing 7,500 SSA (Social Security Administration) employees while aggressively driving the public to online self-service with unreliable AI “assistance.”

As we approach the mid-term elections, it’s important to understand that crippled service delivery is not the only threat to the program. Some in Congress wish to cut benefits, in order to “save” Social Security, using the dwindling Trust Fund surplus as justification and a commission operating behind closed doors as the method. Defenders of the program, on the other hand, call for the rich to pay their fair share by scrapping the cap on earnings subject to taxation, and for increased benefits.

On August 5, just nine days short of the Social Security Act’s 91st birthday, these competing alternatives were put on display at a Senate Finance Committee hearing titled “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency.”

Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) stated that the 1983 Greenspan

Commission “demonstrated the value of creating a forum in which policymakers could work through difficult issues and build consensus on a bipartisan basis.” He credited the 2010 Bowles-Simpson Commission recommendations as having informed subsequent discussions, despite having insufficient support for passage.

The Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member, Ron Wyden (D-OR), said, “Today Republican members of this panel will claim they have the solution: an unaccountable 'commission' that will rubber stamp benefit cuts like increasing the retirement age.” He pointed out that, thanks to last year’s “Big Beautiful Bill," the Trust Fund reserves will be depleted in the last quarter of 2032, rather than in early 2033, costing them $168 billion according to the SSA Chief Actuary. His bottom line is to work on a bipartisan basis to update Social Security and require billionaires to pay their fair share of payroll and income taxes.

Wyden said he wishes that the Committee was there to have a substantive debate. “Instead of talking about talking, this body should get to work on finding a resolution to the Social Security solvency challenge and having that debate in public view.” He stated that Democrats on the Committee had put forward their own ideas, and that through those plans Social Security can be secured indefinitely into the future without any cuts to current or future beneficiaries.

Testimony by AARP Executive Vice President Nancy A. LeaMond stated, “Our message is simple, and it has two parts. First, Congress should strengthen Social Security for future generations without cutting the payments Americans have earned and are earning. Second, Congress should do this work itself - openly, transparently, and deliberatively through regular order - rather than outsourcing it to commissions or forcing it through fast-tracking procedures that restrict debate and amendments.”

Later in her statement she said, “AARP wants Congress to act - sooner rather than later - and we will support members of both parties who take up that work. What we oppose is narrower, and I will say it plainly: we oppose cuts to Social Security, and we oppose processes that would obscure those cuts from the American people. If defending the benefits Americans have earned counts as impeding progress, that says more about the proposals than it does about AARP.”

LeaMond went on to point out that the Greenspan Commission is no model to emulate, and that its own members acknowledged that it failed to produce a solution. It took traditional negotiations between the leaders of the two parties and the President to produce a solution that was then endorsed by the Commission and made its way through Congress under regular procedures. AARP opposes the PROMISE Act (S. 4979), the Fiscal Commission Act (S. 4012), and the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act of 2026 (H.R. 9187). A recent AARP survey revealed that 81% of older Americans (89% of Democrats, 77% of Republicans) reject the idea of cutting Social Security in order to save it.

Rebecca D. Vallas, National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) CEO, presented her own views, as some of the 1,400 members of the Academy may have others. She explained the importance of retirement and disability insurance protections to Americans, from both political parties and among Independents.

Vallas noted an unusual level of agreement among 2,200 Americans ages 21 and over who were surveyed through a partnership of NASI, AARP, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Eighty-five percent want to see Congress prevent cuts or increase benefits even if doing so requires raising taxes on some or all Americans. Scrapping the cap ($184,500 in 2026) was the single most popular option tested in the entire survey. She urged consideration be given to taxing pass-through and investment income, as provided in The Social Security and Medicare Fair Share Act ( S. 1174).

The policy package preferred by 82% of respondents even supports a slight, gradual increase in the contribution rate for everyone, from 6.2% to 7.2%, along with scrapping the cap.