US Senate Finance Panel Begins Discussion on Fixing Social Security – Herb Weiss

What would that mean for older Americans? Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), put a dollar figure on the potential impact in his August 5 testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. A comparable benefit reduction imposed today, he said, would mean an average loss of about $500 a month for beneficiaries.

For a typical newly retired couple, that could translate into an annual loss of roughly $12,000 in Social Security income — a substantial hit for households that depend on the program to pay for housing, food, utilities, health care and other basic expenses. Goldwein’s testimony underscores what the Trustees’ numbers mean beyond the percentages: a future across-the-board cut could have a very real impact on retirees’ daily lives.

Senate Finance Panel Takes Up Social Security’s Future

Just nine days before Social Security’s 91st birthday on Aug. 15, the Senate Committee on Finance held an Aug. 5 hearing, “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency,” to spotlight the program’s looming financial challenges and explore possible legislative approaches. The hearing brought together policy experts and advocacy organizations to discuss how Congress might move toward a solution.

The more than two-hour hearing examined the merits of using a commission versus the regular legislative process. Senators and witnesses also discussed increasing revenue from higher earners, raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap, adjusting benefits, and changing the retirement age.

Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) opened the hearing by warning that Social Security’s OASI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in late 2032. If Congress fails to act, incoming program revenues would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits, he said.

The last comprehensive congressional effort to address Social Security’s solvency took place more than 40 years ago, culminating in the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Signed by President Ronald Reagan, the bipartisan legislation gradually raised the full retirement age, subjected some higher-income Social Security benefits to federal income taxation and increased payroll taxes to strengthen the program’s finances.

Crapo pointed to the 1983 reforms as an example of how an outside commission might help break legislative gridlock. He also cited his participation in a later bipartisan fiscal commission, commonly known as the Greenspan Commission, whose recommendations ultimately failed to win the support needed to move forward.

Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged the idea of creating another commission, arguing that Congress should take responsibility for solving the problem rather than sending it to an outside panel.  “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,” Wyden said.

Crapo responded that the hearing was not intended to promote a specific proposal but to examine a broad range of ideas.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) pushed back against Democratic criticism that Republicans were seeking to cut benefits, saying Congress needs to be willing to consider different approaches to the problem.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) took a much harsher view of the program, calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” and arguing that money collected from taxpayers has already been spent.

Warren says that the current payroll tax applies up to a certain level of earnings; thus, high-income workers pay Social Security taxes only on a smaller percentage of their total income than most middle-income workers.

Sanders framed the issue in simpler terms, asking whether wealthy Americans should pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security as firefighters and nurses.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) observed that conversations about Social Security often “immediately” become fear-mongering, with the discussion centered on taking benefits away. “We’re actually trying to be able to get to a point where no one loses benefits,” Lankford said, noting that the goal should be long-term stabilization.

Lankford acknowledged that having a “grown-up conversation” about stabilizing Social Security’s finances and resolving the problem remains a real challenge.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also called for bipartisan action. “We’ve got to fix this and that means working together. There’s a lot of great ideas out there. If we would just make this a focus and a priority, we can get something done,” she said.

Their comments underscored a central question facing Congress: Can lawmakers move beyond the political rhetoric surrounding Social Security and find enough common ground to actually fix the program?

Keep Social Security at the Table

Nancy A. LeaMond, AARP’s executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, questioned whether another special commission is the best way forward.

“The history of special commissions is littered with very good intentions and failed results,” LeaMond told the committee. She argued that Social Security’s future should be addressed directly by Congress, which has jurisdiction over the program and a long history of tackling difficult Social Security issues.

LeaMond reminded senators that Social Security remains the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans. She noted that it provides more than half of household income for 43% of older American households and provides at least 90% of income for nearly 12 million Americans age 65 and older.

Social Security’s impact also extends beyond individual beneficiaries, LeaMond said. “Every dollar paid in Social Security benefits generates two dollars of economic activity, supporting 12.2 million jobs and $2 trillion in economic output each year,” she said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged AARP’s efforts to protect Social Security, including its television advertising campaign warning against benefit cuts. But Grassley urged AARP and other organizations to do more to educate the public about the looming automatic reductions.

“We’ve got to wake this entire nation up to the fact that there’s going to be 22% cuts if we don’t do something right now,” Grassley said.

Goldwein told the committee that Social Security’s financial problems can be addressed if Congress begins the process rather than continuing to delay action.In his testimony, Goldwein described CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions initiative, which offers potential approaches for restoring Social Security’s solvency. Among the ideas discussed are changes to the taxation of benefits, expanding the payroll tax base, limiting benefits for some high earners, and encouraging longer workforce participation.

The dollar figure Goldwein cited — an average reduction of about $500 a month under a comparable benefit cut — puts the Trustees’ warning into perspective. For retirees already struggling to keep pace with rising housing, food and health care costs, losing another $500 a month would not be an abstract budget number. It could mean difficult choices between paying bills, buying groceries or filling a prescription.

Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University also called for Congress to move quickly, arguing that the most important part of Social Security reform may simply be getting the process started before continued delays make the problem harder and more expensive to solve.

Rebecca D. Vallas, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance, told the committee that the decisions Congress makes about Social Security will rank among the most important work lawmakers undertake in generations.

Vallas cited a survey of more than 2,200 Americans conducted by NASI in partnership with AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The survey found that 85% of respondents favored preventing benefit reductions or increasing benefits, even if that would require raising taxes on some or all Americans. Only 15% preferred benefit reductions to tax increases.

Support for raising revenue rather than cutting benefits crossed party, income, education, and generational lines, Vallas said.

A Final Note…

“Social Security is too important to millions of Americans for Congress to take shortcuts or empower fast-track commissions to do their job. This is an opportunity to show that Washington can work, that it can deliver the results that the American people are demanding, and that it can achieve this goal without waiting until the very last minute to act,” says submitted testimony by Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The message from the hearing was clear: Social Security’s financial problems are real, the clock is ticking, and Congress has no shortage of policy ideas.  What remains uncertain is whether Democrats and Republicans can put aside their philosophical differences long enough to agree on a bipartisan solution.

After 43 years and 4 months since the enactment of Social Security reforms in 1983, the stakes are simply too high for millions of older Americans to wait much longer. Lawmakers must roll up their sleeves and get the work done.

___