Tag Archives for ponzi scheme

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.

Social Security is in Crisis: We Must Resist Efforts to Change It

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on August 19, 2025

Security will mark its 90th anniversary. On that date in 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the landmark program into law as a safeguard against the “hazards and vicissitudes” of life.

“For a federal program to endure for 90 years and maintain an extremely high level of popularity among the American people is truly extraordinary,” says the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM). “It is an achievement that should be celebrated far and wide.”

Yet this milestone comes amid growing political controversy that could shape the program’s future.

Privatization Concerns Emerge

Just 15 days before the anniversary, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made remarks that sent shockwaves through the aging advocacy community. Speaking at a Breitbart News–sponsored event, Bessent described President Trump’s newly enacted “Trump accounts” (also referred to as “Child Savings Accounts” or “Child IRAs”) as potentially serving as a “backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” His comments, made during a Breitbart policy panel on the evening of July 30, were quickly picked up by national media outlets.

Bessent elaborated: “If these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer too.” He suggested that the success and expansion of these individual retirement accounts—created under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act—could eventually reduce Americans’ reliance on traditional Social Security benefits.

The law, signed by Trump on July 4, creates a new tax-deferred investment account for children under the age of 18, born in the U.S. between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. These accounts are seeded with $1,000 in federal funds and allow additional contributions of up to $5,000 annually from parents, family members, or employers. Structured similarly to IRAs, the funds must be invested in low-cost mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track a U.S. stock index.

Max Richtman, NCPSSM President and CEO, quickly issued a public response, calling on Trump to denounce Bessent’s suggestion of a “backdoor” to privatization. “President George W. Bush tried it after his re-election in 2004—and failed miserably. The American people didn’t buy it then, and they won’t buy it now,” Richtman said.

He urged the former president to issue a clear and unequivocal statement: “Make a clear, unequivocal statement (as only you can) that your administration will not try to privatize Social Security.”

John Hishta, Senior Vice President of Campaigns at AARP, also issued a statement and condemned Bessent’s comments. “We have fought any and all efforts to privatize Social Security, and we will continue to,” he said. “President Trump has emphasized many times that Social Security ‘won’t be touched,’ and that he is ‘not going to touch Social Security.’ This must include any and all forms of privatization.”

“Privatization is a terrible idea”, says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works in a statement, noting that unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can’t outlive. “It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street’s hands off our Social Security!,” she says.

Following the backlash, Bessent attempted to clarify his remarks in a post on X (formerly Twitter) the next day: “Trump Baby Accounts are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments. This is not an either-or question. Our administration is committed to protecting Social Security and making sure seniors have more money.”

During her Thursday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that President Trump remains “wholeheartedly committed” to protecting Social Security—even as Bessent’s earlier comments appeared to contradict that position. “What the Secretary of the Treasury was saying—and what this administration believes—is that these Trump newborn accounts, which are an incredibly creative and positive provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill, are meant to help supplement, not substitute, Social Security,” Leavitt told reporters.

Democrats and Advocacy Groups Push Back

Last Thursday, amid hundreds of events scheduled this month throughout the nation to celebrate SSA’s 90th anniversary, the Washington, D.C.–based Social Security Works hosted a press conference to warn against what they called Trump administration efforts to undermine and dismantle Social Security.

Moderator Nancy Altman, President of SSW, opened the Town Hall by emphasizing the importance of celebrating Social Security’s milestone anniversary and the need to protect and defend the program. Throughout the event, Altman introduced each speaker, describing them as champions dedicated to safeguarding Social Security.

Speakers cited administrative actions such as firing 7,000 employees, closing field offices, and creating a customer service crisis. During the 37-minute press event, prominent Democrats and leaders of progressive advocacy groups argued these steps were part of a deliberate strategy to erode public confidence and justify future benefit cuts or privatization.

They contrasted these actions with proposals to expand benefits and extend the program’s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), described as a leading champion of earned benefits and author of the Social Security Expansion Act, called Social Security “the most successful federal government program of all time.” This was said to counter claims by critics, like Elon Musk, who have called it a “Ponzi scheme.” Sanders added: “This is a huge fight. We have the American people behind us. Let’s win it.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and a key figure in the Senate’s “Social Security War Room,” said: “Trump’s so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance.”

Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut), Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, urged Congress to expand benefits. He noted that the last major expansion was under President Nixon and that millions of seniors still live in or near poverty.

Former Social Security Commissioner under President Biden, Martin O’Malley, charged, “They’re trying to wreck its customer service so they can turn enough Americans against it—and ultimately get away with robbing it.” He described this as the strategic motivation behind what he called the Trump administration’s dismantling of the SSA’s operational capacity.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), who helped organize the Expand Social Security Caucus and has deep family ties to the creation of both Social Security and Medicare, declared: “I’ll be damned if anybody’s going to take us back to those days,” recalling the poverty and desperation seniors faced before the program’s enactment.

Judith Brown, a Social Security beneficiary, gave personal testimony underscoring the critical role her monthly check plays in her financial survival.

Keisha Bras, Director of Opportunity, Race, and Justice for the NAACP; Molly Weston Williamson, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund and an expert on paid leave; and Sarah Francis of Unrig Our Economy rounded out the panel.

A Legacy Under Threat

NCPSSM President Max Richtman warns that while the anniversary is cause for celebration, “we must always defend the program from those who would privatize or outright eliminate it. These forces have been at work ever since Social Security was enacted.”

To educate the public and counter misinformation, NCPSSM has produced a new documentary, Social Security: 90 Years Strong, with funding from AARP. The film tells the story of the program’s creation during the Great Depression and its enduring role for seniors, people with disabilities, and their families.

The documentary features interviews with Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Nancy Altman (Social Security Works), Bill Arnone (formerly of the National Academy of Social Insurance), FDR’s grandson Jim Roosevelt, Tracey Gronniger (Justice in Aging), Kathryn Edwards (Labor Economist), and Giovanna Gray Lockhart (former Director, Frances Perkins Center).

Social Security is often called the “third rail” of American politics—a metaphor drawn from the high-voltage rail powering some trains, where contact can be fatal. In politics, “stepping on the third rail” can mean political death.

“More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America ages, we expect at least 13 million more people to rely on it by 2035.” said Myechia Minter-Jordan, Chief Executive Officer at AARP in s July 21 statement announcing the results of a new SSA survey. “For 90 years, Social Security has never missed a payment, and Americans should have confidence that it never will,” she said. 

The survey findings indicate that nearly two in three (65%) retired Americans say they rely substantially on Social Security, while another 21 percent say they rely on it somewhat. In 2020, 63% of retired Americans said they relied substantially on Social Security, jumping from 58% in both 2015 and 2010.

Social Security has strong bipartisan support, too.  The survey found that that more than two-thirds of Americans (67%) believe Social Security is more important to retirees today than it was five years ago. Overall, 96% consider the program important, with broad bipartisan agreement: 98% of Democrats, 95% of Republicans, and 93% of Independents.

The Social Security Trustees’ 2025 annual report, released in June, projects the program’s trust funds will run short of money by 2034. Without action, beneficiaries could face an estimated 19% cut in monthly payments.

Whether lawmakers who support privatization —while keeping their voter base—if they “step on the third rail” by raising the full retirement age or refusing to raise taxes remains to be seen.

We’ll see.

Trump’s Campaign Pledges Could impact Social Security’s Financial Stability

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on November 4, 2024

When voters go to the polls on Tuesday, they should know that Social Security will only be nine years away from insolvency when the next President takes office.  According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the law calls for a 23 percent cut in Social Security reductions in fiscal year 2034.  Restoring solvency in the retirement program over the next 75 years would require the equivalent of reducing all future benefits by 24 percent or increasing revenue by 35 percent, says CBO.

As the presidential campaign winds down, with voting taking place on Nov. 4, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris calls for protecting and expanding Social Security while former President Trump says would “fight for and protect Social Security.” But both candidates don’t provide a specific detail plan as to how to  fix the financially ailing Social Security program, despite the looming $16,500 cut facing a typical couple retiring just before the projected insolvency.

But campaign promises, if enacted, can have a devastating impact on the Social Security Programs ability to pay all future benefits.

Analysis Shows Campaign Promises Weaken Social Security

A new report, “What Would the Trump Campaign’s Mean for Social Security,” released by US Budget Watch 2024, a project the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), details how former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, if enacted, would advance Social Security’s insolvency by three years, from FY 2034 to FY 2031 – hastening the next President’s insolvency timeline by one-third.  CRFB is a non-partisan government watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. that analyses the fiscal impact of federal budget and fiscal issues.

According to CRFB’s new report, released on Oct. 21, 2024, Trump campaign pledges  would weaken Social Security’s financial stability by ending taxation of Social Security benefits. This would eliminate a revenue stream currently used to help finance Social Security. If enacted, the analysis notes that Trump’s plans would increase Social Security’s ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through FY 2035. Additionally, ending all taxes on overtime pay and tips, would also reduce the payroll taxes accruing to the Social Security trust funds.

CRFB’s analysis also predicted that Trump’s policies would worsen Social Security’s finances by increasing Social Security’s annual shortfall by roughly 50 percentin FY 2035, from 3.6 to 4 percent of payroll.

Trump’s calls for large tariffs on imports, which would either increase cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) through higher inflation or reduce taxable payroll would impact the financial viability of the Social Security program.  Enhancing boarder security and deporting unauthorized immigrants would reduce the number of immigrant workers paying into the Social Security Trust funds.

CRFB also questions whether Trump’s fixes would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfalls.

From the Sideline…

According to Aimee Picchi is associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, the personal finance website received a statement from Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt disputing the CRFB analysis: “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” she said.

Additionally,  Leavitt told CBS  Money Watch that Trump’s plans for “unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies” would put Social Security “on a stronger footing for generations to come.”

“President Trump has said he would close Social Security’s long-term shortfall by increasing drilling for oil and natural gas and by growing the economy. However, we’ve shown that increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security – even if the gains were deposited into the trust fund. We’ve also shown that it would require unrealistically fast economic growth to close Social Security’s existing long-term funding gap,” says CRFB’s analysis. .

“Faster growth can reduce Social Security’s shortfall [says Trump]. But based on available analyses and understanding the effects of President Trump’s agenda on the national debt, it is unlikely his plans would significantly boost the size of the economy, and many estimates find his plans would reduce long-term out-put long-term output,” adds CRFB.

Responding to CRFB’s analysis, in a statement Harris-Walz 2024 spokesperson Joseph Costello said: “Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail. 

Expand Social Security Caucus House Co-Chairs Reps. John B. Larso (D -CT), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and Debbie Dingell (D – MI) )call Trump’s campaign pledges “a no starter.”  If implemented, they would eliminate revenue streams used to help finance Social Security and accelerate the depletion of Social Security funding,” they say.

“Maintaining the solvency of Social Security is vital for promoting economic security, and a moral obligation to honor the commitments made to those who have contributed to the system throughout their working lives. To safeguard the future of Social Security, we cannot allow for Trump’s policies to gut these hard-earned benefits and instead must engage in a simple reform like the Social Security 2100 Act that fixes insolvency by having the wealthy pay into the system the same as everyone else,” note the Co-Chairs.

And Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, gives his thought’s to Trump’s campaign pledges: “We oppose his proposal to eliminate the taxes on benefits that help to fund the system, and any other measure that would deprive Social Security of much needed revenue,” he says.

“Once again, Trump postures as a friend of the working class, then puts forward plans that endanger the benefits working people have earned — and depend on in retirement. It is irresponsible for a presidential candidate to advocate plans that would hasten the depletion of the Social Security trust fund reserves, triggering an even larger automatic benefit cut if that happens,” adds Richtman.

According to Richtman, Trump’s plans reveal his “overall recklessness” with Social Security. “He suspended the payroll tax that funds the program during Covid — and hoped it would be eliminated.  His White House budgets would have slashed Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by billions of dollars.  He said earlier this year that he was ‘open’ to ‘cutting entitlements,’ then tried to walk it back. He once called Social Security a ‘Ponzi Scheme,” he adds.

“Time and again, Trump has chosen political expediency without considering – or caring about – the consequences. Despite his posturing, Donald Trump is no friend to Social Security or American seniors,” charges Richtman.

Looking Back on Efforts to Fix Social Security

“The history and reasoning in both Congress and the White House on protecting Social Security is still important and persuasive– as it was to President Obama, and House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid,” says Robert Weiner, former chief of Staff of the House Aging Committee and later a  White House senior staffer

“The great Claude Pepper helped forge the Reagan-O’Neill-Pepper deal of 1983 that stopped cuts and even partial insolvency through 2034,” says Weiner, noting that he remembers Pepper saying “over my dead body” to cabinet officers and congressional leaders who wanted to impose severe cuts. 

Weiner noted that Nancy Pelosi said  “First, do no harm” to the would-be cutters right through all the years of her Speakership and leadership. “’We did that’ to stopping the Social Security cutters, she told Weiner. 

Senate Leader Harry Reid’s staff removed the term ‘reform’ from his Social Security talking points when they were given the documents and realized that the program has a surplus, not a deficit,” noted Weiner. “These great leaders knew that Social Security ‘reform’ meant cuts, breaking Social Security’s promise to American seniors, and that the deficit was a myth and excuse to take from the program and its two-trillion-plus dollar surplus,” he said. 

“And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told me that congressional leaders knew that, if necessary, if the time comes, and it’s not now, a slight tweak by Congress to raise the income level for tax payments could fix it, if necessary, if the growing economy hadn’t already maintained full solvency,” says Weiner.

“Let’s hope this kind of sanity and sensitivity continues to prevail,” Weiner concludes.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security