Published in RINewsToday on August 31, 2026.
Just before the nation celebrated Social Security’s 91st birthday on August 15, the Senate Finance Committee held an August 5 hearing titled “Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency.” The hearing put a spotlight on the program’s looming financial challenges.
It explored possible legislative approaches to shore up its finances before the trust fund reaches insolvency in roughly six years, resulting in significant benefit cuts if Congress fails to act. The hearing followed an earlier Senate Finance Committee hearing in June that also examined the future of Social Security.
At both hearings, lawmakers and witnesses warned about the looming fiscal crisis of Social Security, as documented in the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, released in June. The latest Trustees’ report projected that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will become insolvent by 2032. When this occurs, incoming payroll taxes would be sufficient to pay only about 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts.
The Clock is Ticking
Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) joined the Senate Finance Committee in sounding the alarm about the impending insolvency of Social Security.
Against this backdrop, an Aug. 26 CRFB blog posting challenges what the budget watchdog calls a long-held myth about Social Security — that the program works much like a personal retirement account. Under that view, workers contribute money through payroll taxes during their employment years and, when they retire, receive their own money back.
That is not how Social Security works, CRFB argues.
Benefits are calculated using a worker’s earnings history and a benefit formula, rather than an individual account containing that worker’s contributions. Social Security’s progressive benefit formula also provides what CRFB calls “proportionately greater protection” to lower-income workers. While Social Security benefits are earned benefits, CRFB argues that does not mean retirees are simply withdrawing money they personally deposited into the system over their working lives.
“Fixing the system will require putting this myth to bed,” says CRFB.
Citing a 2025 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis comparing lifetime Social Security taxes with benefits, CRFB says the data show that many workers will collect more in benefits than they and their employers paid in payroll taxes, even after adjusting those contributions to their present value.
Simply put, CRFB calculates that, on average, retirees are scheduled to receive back all of their contributions, plus interest, plus an additional 33 cents in benefits for every $1 they and their employers paid into the program. CRFB points out that individual experiences can vary widely. Someone who dies shortly after retirement may collect far less than someone who lives into their 90s. Married couples, surviving spouses, disabled workers and people with different earnings histories can also have very different outcomes.
But CRFB stresses that it is not arguing that Social Security benefits should be cut to match what individual workers contributed. It calls that the wrong conclusion to draw from its analysis. Instead, the organization argues that policymakers should stop treating every dollar of scheduled benefits as “untouchable personal savings.”
With Social Security’s financing deadline rapidly approaching, CRFB says Congress should consider changes on both sides of the ledger — benefits and revenues — as part of any bipartisan effort to ensure the long-term solvency of the program.
“The most important conclusion [of this study] is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the benefit that is directly tied to how much you paid in. And so, as we’re evaluating reform, this idea that, well, I paid for it, therefore you cannot adjust the benefit formula at all, is nonsense,” says Marc Goldwein, CRFB’s senior policy director, who has studied Social Security for more than 20 years.
Unraveling a False Narrative
Goldwein says that the argument that scheduled benefits are “untouchable” has created a “false narrative” used by some Social Security advocacy groups. He compares their unwillingness to consider changes to benefits to the anti-tax position long associated with conservative activist Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform.
Goldwein offers examples of potential Social Security reforms that Congress might consider as it hammers out legislation. These reforms include: applying the employer payroll tax to all forms of compensation, including health care benefits and stock options; capping benefits at $100,000 per couple; raising the taxable wage maximum; and potentially adjusting the retirement age while protecting lower-income workers.
Goldwein warns Congress not to use general revenues to ensure the long-term financial stability of Social Security. He estimates that doing so would add more than $190 trillion in borrowing in today’s dollars, potentially leading to skyrocketing debt and a fiscal crisis while fundamentally changing Social Security’s contributory structure.
Ultimately, Goldwein says neither political party is likely to get everything it wants.
Getting a Social Security reform package through Congress “will take compromise on all parties,” says Goldwein, pointing to the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.
“It’s either a deal or there’s a 22% benefit cut,” he adds.
On the Other Side of the Coin
Maria Freese, senior Social Security policy analyst for the Washington, D.C. based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, stresses that Social Security is not an investment plan but social insurance.
“Like any insurance program, it’s wrong to calculate the worth of the program from the standpoint of a ‘rate of return.’ If you spend your entire life buying fire insurance but your house never burns down, would CRFB argue it’s a ‘bad investment’ and that homeowners should forgo insurance? Of course not. And why should we expect to get a specific ‘rate of return’ on Social Security when we don’t ask the same of any other federal program?” she says.
Workers with low lifetime earnings receive a much higher income replacement rate from Social Security than middle-income workers, who in turn receive a higher replacement rate than higher-income workers, says Freese, noting that Social Security is designed as a progressive benefit program.
“Also, Social Security ‘return’ arguments differ by birth cohort,” adds Freese. Baby Boomers, for instance, will end up receiving a higher income replacement rate than younger generations, she explains, in large part because of the increase in Social Security’s full retirement age enacted in 1983. So even if today’s retirees are getting a 133% “rate of return,” that rate will continue trending downward over time.
Freese says “legacy debt” is another way of looking at intergenerational differences.
“Early beneficiaries got a lot more back in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes, which kept the Trust Funds from building any assets in the first decades of the program. Ida Mae Fuller, the first person to receive a Social Security check (back in 1940), is the best example, as she paid in $22.75 and received almost $23,000 in benefits before she died at age 100,” she says.
CRFB is hiding behind a ‘money’s worth’ smokescreen to cover the truth that Social Security’s benefits, which are too low, are easily affordable if wealthier Americans start paying their fair share,” charges Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, who also chairs the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. “The money’s worth argument is not new. Importantly, it willfully refuses to acknowledge that Social Security is insurance,” she says.
Altman asks: “Do those who do not become so disabled they can no longer support themselves through work get less than their money’s worth from Social Security’s disability insurance? If they don’t die prematurely, do they get less than their money’s worth from Social Security’s survivors’ insurance? Do those who do become disabled and those who die leaving dependents get more than their so-called money’s worth?”
Over the years, Altman has been consistent in her solution for shoring up Social Security’s finances. “As with other insurance, dozens of actuaries project the cost of benefits, and the income needed to finance them. Americans overwhelmingly agree that Social Security’s benefits are too low. They want the wealthiest to start paying their fair share, so the projected shortfall is eliminated, and the cost of increased benefits is covered,” she says.
For Goldwein, the choices facing Congress are clear – but hardly easy. Lawmakers can do “the grown-up thing” — as lawmakers did in passing the landmark 1983 reforms — and make the political compromises necessary to ensure Social Security’s financial stability. Or they can keep kicking the can down the road, borrowing more and leaving an even bigger problem for the next generation of workers and retirees.
A Final Note…
That’s where the political and philosophical divide comes into clear focus.
CRFB’s Goldwein argues that scheduled benefits cannot be treated as untouchable simply because workers paid payroll taxes throughout their careers. Social Security Advocates Freese and Altman counter that Social Security is social insurance, not a personal investment account, and that its value cannot be measured simply by comparing dollars paid in with dollars received.
However, Goldwein, Freese and Altman agree on this fact: Congress cannot continue to ignore the looming insolvency of Social Security. The real political challenge for both sides is to find common ground between competing philosophies. Ultimately any legislative reform to Social Security must protect the financial security that this program provides while ensuring the program can keep its promises to future generations yet to come.
As this debate continues to unfold, you can see that there is no shortage of policy ideas being floated inside the beltway to fix Social Security. There is no shortage of experts, too.
What is in short supply is time, say CRFB and the Social Security advocates.
With the clock ticking toward 2032, Congress will eventually have to make hard political decisions, determining whether compromise is possible. For millions of Americans who depend on their monthly Social Security check, that decision is not a theoretical exercise. It is about whether the monthly check they count on will be there — and how much it will be.
After more than 90 years, Social Security deserves better than another round of political finger-pointing. It deserves a bipartisan solution now.
To read CRFB’s Trust Fund Solutions that detail solutions to help improve the solvency of Social Security, along with promoting economic growth, strengthening retirement security, enabling continued work, improving seniors’ health, and fixing the country’s finances, go to Trust Fund Solutions | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
To watch the Aug. 5 Senate Finance Committee hearing on approaches for addressing Social Security’s Solvency, go to [2026-08-05] Hearing: Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency | The United States Senate Committee on Finance.
Herb Weiss 