Tag Archives for National Institute on Retirement Security

Senate Finance Panel Begins Discussion on Fixing Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on August 17, 2026

Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI) is projected to reach insolvency by late 2032, triggering an automatic 22% across-the-board benefit cut if Congress fails to act, according to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report released June 9. The clock is ticking — fewer than 2,300 days remain.

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. Acomparable 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.

Rhode Island’s Whitehouse Calls for Answers

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse pressed Republicans for a specific plan to address Social Security’s finances.

“Where’s the Republican proposal? Where is it? It doesn’t exist,”

Whitehouse charged, arguing that Republicans were unwilling to publicly embrace proposals that could result in benefit reductions.

Whitehouse said Democrats have legislation that would make Social Security solvent “for as far as the actuarial eye can see” without cutting benefits.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) focused on raising more revenue from higher-income Americans by increasing the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Warren noted that the payroll tax currently applies only up to a certain level of earnings, meaning high-income workers pay Social Security taxes 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.

But not every senator framed the debate in partisan terms.

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?

AARP: 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 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.

New study gives Congress a road map to fix Social Security 

Published in RINewsToday on February 17, 2025

As Social Security celebrates its 90th anniversary on Aug. 14, 2025, this essential retirement program has long been facing a significant long-term financing gap.  According to the 2024 Social Security trustees report, unless Congress acts the trust funds will be depleted by 2035, forcing the program to reduce benefits by 17%.

With over 70 million retirees and individuals with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits, it is time for Congress to get serious about hammering out a viable bipartisan solution to resolving Social Security’s funding gap.  And a recently released report provides the groundwork for a policy that a partisan Congress might just consider.   

Last month, the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI), AARP, the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) released the results of a qualitative analysis study, on Jan. 29, 2025, detailing American views on Social Security, a federal “social safety net” program that provides income to people who are retired, disabled, or have dependents, helping them to plan for retirement and other life events.   

The new, recently released, 72-page report, entitled, Social Security at 90: A Bipartisan Roadmap for the Program’s Future, is a must read for the White House and Congressional lawmakers as they begin to debate specific policies that would make long-term fixes to ensure the long-term solvency of the America’s retirement program.  

The NASI survey, fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago, a nonprofit research organization, surveyed 2,243 Americans ages 21 and over. 

Unlike most public opinion research on Social Security, which asks about each policy option individually, NASI says that this survey, conducted in partnership with the Washington, DC-based Greenwald Research, a firm having extensive experience in public opinion and consumer preference research, features a unique trade-off analysis that examine which combination of product features – or in this case policy changes- that consumers prefer and are willing to pay for.

The study’s findings are also largely consistent with previous NASI 2012 and 2014 studies, Strengthening Social Security: What Do American’s Want? and Americans Make Hard Choices: A Survey with Trade-off Analysis. 

Sending a clear message to Washington

The NASI study’s findings indicate that Americans (across party lines, generations, income and education), strongly support Social Security and see it as the lynchpin for retirement security.  Only four percent state that they do not consider it to be an important income to draw on during retirement. 

Rather than ensuring the solvency of Social Security through cutting benefits, the survey respondents strongly support strengthening the program’s finances by raising revenues, noting the study’s findings.  Eighty-five percent of the respondents call for benefits not being reduced, even if this means raising taxes on some or all Americans.

According to the survey’s findings, the most strongly favored option is eliminating the cap on payroll tax contributions for those earning more than $400,000 per year and their employers, who would contribute to Social Security via payroll taxes on wages above that amount. Those affected would not receive additional benefits.

Additionally, respondents across all groups, including a majority of Republicans, say they are willing to pay more themselves by gradually increasing the payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 7.2 percent, to strengthen the program’s finances.  Workers earning less than $50,000 per year would not take financial hits. They would only contribute an additional $42 per month.

Don’t touch our benefits!

Given a broad set of policy options available to address Social Security’s financing gap, the respondents also reject benefit reductions such as keeping the full retirement age at 67 instead of further raising. Those surveyed also called for adjusting the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to more accurately reflect inflation and spending habits of older adults.

The NASI study also found that Americans want to strengthen Social Security benefits by adding a caregiver credit for workers who take time out of the workforce to care for young children and a “bridge benefit” to protect from the early claiming reduction of those in physically demanding jobs who may be unable to continue working up to full retirement age.

Finally, the study’s findings indicate that overwhelming majority of Americans (90 percent) see the need and valuable of Social Security’s disability benefits, too.  These respondents say that they will need Social Security’s disability benefits if they become disabled and unable to support themselves through work, and only four percent support cutting disability benefits. The survey also finds strong bipartisan support for updating outdated rules in Supplemental Security Income, including its $2,000 asset limit.

Statements from NASI and core partners

“At a time when our country is deeply divided, Social Security remains a powerful unifying force,” said Rebecca Vallas, NASI’s Chief Executive Officer. “This survey shows there is strong bipartisan agreement on how the American people want to secure the program’s future, and we urge policymakers to listen,” she says.

“It is rare in today’s political climate to see people unite around anything,” adds AARP Chief Public Policy Officer Deb Whitman, noting that all Americans want their Social Security benefits to be preserved. They are willing to do what it takes to ensure the program continues to provide meaningful support for future generations, she says.

“Social Security is the foundation of retirement security in the United States. This report clearly indicates both the important role that Social Security plays as a source of retirement income for older Americans as well as the priority the American people place on resolving the financing gap so that benefits are not cut indiscriminately,” said Tyler Bond, NIRS’s Research Director. “This research continues a long history of finding strong support for Social Security among the public,” he says.

Finally, stated: “These survey results show that Americans value Social Security and their private sector retirement benefits because they were unwilling to cut those benefits to finance Social Security,” says Chantel Sheaks, USCC’s Vice President of Retirement Policy. “Americans think of these together, and policymakers should as well,” he suggests.

Adding their two cents

“This survey shows that Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike — absolutely do not want to see cuts to Social Security’s modest benefits,” says Nancy Altman, President of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works.

“Instead, they want the wealthy to finally start contributing their fair share. If necessary, they are even willing to pay more themselves. Any DC politician who supports benefit cuts is wildly out of step with the American people,” she notes.

“While the study’s findings are consistent with other major surveys on Social Security during the previous years, it is remarkable that despite the current tumultuous political environment, American voters have a deep emotional bond with the program and want to ensure that Congress protects and improves their benefits without cutting them,” says Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

The NASI poll sends a strong signal to members of Congress that they should support legislation, like Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s Social Security 2100 Act, that would extend solvency and improve benefits by having the wealthy pay their fair share of payroll taxes,” says Adcock. 

In one of President Trump’s rolling press conferences, he touched upon Social Security saying there were no cuts being proposed – if anything he would make the program stronger.

Social Security and the Ocean State 

In 2022, there were more than 233,000 Social Security beneficiaries in Rhode Island, including more than 172,000 retirees, 32,000 disabled workers, and almost 14,000 children,” says NIRS’s Tyler Bond, noting that all of these Rhode Islanders face the prospect of an indiscriminate benefit cut in a decade unless Congress acts to shore up Social Security’s financing. 

“This report has one clear takeaway: the American people do not want Social Security benefit cuts, and they are willing to pay more themselves to avoid those potential benefit cuts,” adds Bond.

In conclusion, the NASI report cites 84-year-old Elizabeth R. Virginia, about her personal views on America’s retirement program. “Social Security is one of the most dependable things that we have. You know that it will come again at the same time. Right now, I know the second day of every month, it is there,” she says.

As Virginia knows, she can count on receiving her monthly Social Security check.  The program has never missed a payment in nine decades.  Congress must now work together to ensure that this never will happen.

For a copy of NASI’s Social Security report, go to www.nasi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/NASI_SocialSecurityat90.pdf

For copy of NASI’s issue brief, “America’s View on Social Security,” go to www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/FINAL-Views-on-SS-July-2024.pdf/

For statistics on RI Social Security beneficiaries, go to Source for RI statistics, go to www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_zip/2022/ri.pdf.