Tag Archives for NCPSSM

Shoring Up the Nation’s Fraying Social Safety Net

Last week, AARP Foundation announced its analysis of newly released Census data on poverty, income and health insurance coverage in 2025.

“At first glance, it sounded like good news,” observed AARP Foundation President Claire Casey during an 18-minute virtual media briefing on Sept. 24. “Poverty fell, and household income hit a record high, but the headlines can be deceiving and not reflect what is happening to older Americans,” she said.

Casey stressed to attending journalists that the key takeaway was that senior poverty, measured using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), has risen for the fifth consecutive year, a trend not seen by any other age group. The SPM accounts for unavoidable costs like housing and health care.

According to the SPM, more than 10 million people age 65 and older are living in poverty, a number that has jumped roughly 45% since 2019. “And for perspective, we’re talking about an incredibly low bar. For a single renter, the poverty line starts at just over $19,000 a year,” Casey said.

Between 2020 and 2025, the percentage of Americans 65 and older living in poverty increased from 9.4% to 15.4%, according to the SPM, the largest increase for any age group measured.

Casey also highlighted the continuing economic disparities facing older women, whose poverty rate is about 17%. She attributed this, in part, to lifetime inequalities, including the gender pay gap and career interruptions for child care and elder care.

Taking a Look at Poverty Before Retirement

To better understand why senior poverty keeps rising, Casey argues that we have to look at what happens before people turn 65.

While discussing the newly released Census data, Casey compared it with findings from AARP Foundation’s new Economic Security Monitor, a quarterly survey tracking financial stability among adults age 50 and older living on low incomes.

The latest Monitor found significant hardships among adults ages 50 to 64, a group traditionally considered to be in their peak earning years.

Nearly one-third reported running out of food before they had money to buy more, 70% said their household expenses had increased in just the last three months, and one-third could not cover an emergency expense of more than $100.

Many assume that employment in their 50s brings peak financial stability, but for millions of Americans preparing to retire, the numbers tell a different story.

More than 7 million people between ages 50 and 64, about one in eight, are already living in poverty, Casey pointed out.

“That’s our warning sign. If people are already struggling this much before retirement, we know where they are headed,” Casey said, noting that “we have to act now or senior poverty will keep rising.”

“But what’s even more troubling is that you don’t have to be in poverty at 55 to age into it,” Casey warned. An individual can work full-time throughout a career, do everything right, and still end up impoverished in retirement. Only one in four older adults with low incomes has access to a workplace retirement plan, she noted.

Casey also pointed to problems facing low-income workers between ages 50 and 64, particularly those who lose jobs or work in low-paying occupations because of age discrimination or early health complications. They are more likely to experience long-term unemployment, and only 10% will find a new job with equal or higher pay, she said.

Programs exist to help seniors facing poverty, but getting those benefits can be difficult. “Older adults miss out on an estimated $58 billion in benefits each year because the system is hard to access,” Casey said.

“As Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid requirements change, I worry that eligible people, especially those 55 to 64, will lose access,” Casey said, stressing the importance of maintaining these lifeline benefits and helping states deliver them more effectively.

“Each year since 2020, more and more older adults have fallen into abject poverty,” Casey said. “Today’s release confirms what we see every day in our work—that rising prices, an eroding social safety net, and diminishing access to quality jobs are creating extreme precarity for older adults in our communities.”

Advocacy Groups Weigh In

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, says the Census numbers underscore the need to protect Social Security as Congress considers how to address the program’s long-term financial shortfall.

“The 2025 Census poverty data and AARP analysis make one fact unmistakable: retirees and future retirees are being pushed into deeper economic insecurity,” Richtman said. “Cutting earned benefits would intensify the crisis,” he cautioned.

The National Committee believes Congress should require wealthy Americans to contribute more to extend Social Security’s solvency while improving benefits for current and future generations.

Here in Rhode Island, advocates say the numbers tell a similar story.

Carol Anne Costa, Executive Director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI), points to Census data, the Elder Index, and United Way of Rhode Island’s ALICE report as evidence that many older Rhode Islanders struggle to pay for housing, food, health care, utilities, and transportation.

“The data tells a troubling story,” Costa said. “The share of older Rhode Island households living below the federal poverty level rose from 8.9 percent in 2019 to 12.3 percent in 2024. This is not an abstract statistic, she said, noting it represents older adults having to make impossible choices between paying rent, filling prescriptions, keeping the heat on, or buying groceries.

Costa added that one in four older Rhode Island households has income below $25,000 a year. According to the 2026 Elder Index figures cited by SACRI, an older adult renter in good health needs approximately $34,152 annually to meet basic expenses. An older couple in poor health who own their home needs approximately $45,996.

But poverty statistics alone do not tell the whole story.

“The federal poverty measure does not capture the full extent of hardship facing older adults,” said Maureen Maigret, SACRI Policy Advisor. She pointed to the recent United Way of Rhode Island ALICE report, which found that 53% of older Rhode Islanders do not have enough income to meet necessities.

“This situation is getting worse, not better,” Maigret said. “Rhode Island must treat affordability impacting older adults as an urgent public policy priority.”

SACRI is urging state policymakers to move forward with its Older Adult Affordability Agenda, beginning with eliminating the asset limit for the Medicare Savings Program.

“Eliminating the asset limit would allow thousands more eligible older Rhode Islanders and people with disabilities to qualify for help with their Medicare Part B premiums,” Maigret said. For eligible individuals, she noted, that can mean savings of at least $2,400 each year because the federal government pays the Part B premium.

Costa calls it a practical solution that would put money back into the pockets of low-income older adults while bringing additional federal dollars into Rhode Island.

The Economic Progress Institute (EPI) also warns that the federal poverty numbers do not fully capture the financial squeeze facing Rhode Islanders.

Nina Harrison, EPI’s Policy Director, points out that although the Census Bureau’s Official Poverty Measure fell by 0.5 percentage points nationally in 2025, the broader Supplemental Poverty Measure did not change significantly. She contends that even though incomes may have risen, they did not rise enough to offset higher costs.

Harrison also warns that changes in federal healthcare and food assistance policies will put additional pressure on low-income Rhode Islanders. She cited the loss of enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits and federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid as particular concerns.

EPI’s 2026 Rhode Island Standard of Need report, scheduled for release Monday, takes a closer look at what Rhode Island households need to cover basic living expenses. Harrison says its findings show that nearly 40% of Rhode Island households cannot afford their basic needs, including many older residents. More than half of Rhode Island women age 65 and older who live alone cannot meet their basic needs, she said.

“Without significant intervention and harm reduction, OBRA and related federal policies are sure to increase the poverty rate and human suffering,” Harrison warned.

She is urging the General Assembly to find ways to protect food and healthcare assistance for Rhode Islanders who lose federal benefits and to strengthen other programs serving low-income residents.

A Final Note…

As previously stated, the numbers the Census Bureau released tell us something important. The nation’s overall poverty rate may have fallen in 2025, but millions of older Americans are being left behind.

Casey’s warning at the start of the press briefing deserves the attention of Congress and state legislatures. Since millions of older Americans face financial difficulties, it is no surprise that many ultimately end up in poverty after retirement.

For many, the financial problems begin years before they collect their first Social Security check. They retire with little savings, no pension or workplace retirement plan, and not much room in their monthly budget to cover increased rent, a broken refrigerator, or an unexpected medical bill.

AARP Foundation efforts to call attention to senior poverty should serve as a troubling warning to Congress as it debates the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act, and SNAP.

Congress must address Social Security’s long-term financial problems before automatic cuts to program benefits take place in 2032.  Tens of millions of retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors already living on the financial edge would see their situation worsen. Congress must also ensure that changes to the nation’s social safety-net programs don’t make it harder for eligible older Americans to get the help they need.

Rhode Island lawmakers also have their work to do. Eliminating the asset limit for the Medicare Savings Program would be one concrete step toward helping low-income older Rhode Islanders stretch their limited monthly incomes.

To review AARP Foundation’s June 2026 Economic Security Monitor (full report), go to  AARP Foundation Economic Security Monitor Fact Sheet.

To review AARP Foundation’s June 2026 Economic Security Monitor (fact sheet), go to AARP Foundation Economic Security Monitor Fact Sheet

Download the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2025 Poverty Report,  go to Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2025

___

Political and Philosophical Compromise Key to Saving Social Security

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.

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.