Tag Archives for Senate Finance Committee

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.

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.

Senior Agenda Coalition of RI pushes wealth tax to fund programs for older residents

Published in RINewsToday on June 2, 2025

With the recent passage of the House Republican budget—which cuts some programs and services for seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children—Sulma Arias, Executive Director of Chicago-based People’s Action (PA), is calling on billionaires and large corporations to finally pay their fair share of taxes.

Senator Bernie Sanders has echoed similar sentiments on the national stage, urging lawmakers to ensure that ultra-wealthy individuals and powerful corporations contribute more equitably to the nation’s economic well-being, rather than shifting the burden to everyday Americans by cutting essential services.

In Rhode Island, Democratic lawmakers are advancing legislation this session that would increase taxes on the state’s highest earners to generate vital revenue for public programs and services.

Proposed Legislation Targets Top Earners

HB 5473, introduced on February 12, 2025, by Rep. Karen Alzate (D-Dist. 60, Pawtucket, Central Falls), was referred to the House Finance Committee. The bill proposes a 3% surtax on taxable income above $625,000—on top of the existing 5.99% rate—targeting the top 1% of Rhode Island tax filers. The surtax is projected to raise approximately $190 million annually and would affect about 5,700 of the state’s more than 500,000 filers. If enacted, the tax would apply to income earned in tax years beginning in 2026 and would not be retroactive.

As of the May 6 House Finance Committee hearing, about 140 pieces of written testimony had been submitted on HB 5473. The committee held the bill for further study, with no additional action yet taken. The proposal remains under consideration as part of ongoing budget negotiations.

A companion bill, S. 329, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Melissa Murray (D-Dist. 24, Woonsocket, North Smithfield) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. A hearing on the measure was held last Thursday, and the bill was also held for further study.

As the volume of testimony indicates, the battle lines are clearly drawn. Progressive groups and unions support the legislation, while businesses and business organizations, such as the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, have voiced strong opposition. Governor Dan McKee has not yet taken a public position on the bills.

The Pros and Cons

Supporters argue that with Rhode Island facing a $220 million budget deficit, HB 5473 and S. 329 could raise nearly $190 million annually to fund critical services, including: K-12 and higher education; health care; housing; public transportation; affordable child care; infrastructure, and programs for older adults

They contend that the proposals would bolster the state’s safety net, particularly in light of uncertain federal funding. A more progressive tax structure, they argue, would make the system fairer by reducing the burden on middle- and lower-income residents. Currently, the top 1% of Rhode Island taxpayers control a disproportionate share of the state’s wealth but, when accounting for sales and property taxes, pay a smaller share of their income than lower-income households.

Opponents, however, warn of unintended consequences. They claim the bills would drive wealthy residents and businesses out of the state, eroding the tax base.Supporters dispute this, pointing to IRS and Stanford University studies indicating that wealthy individuals typically relocate for family or climate-related reasons—not for tax considerations. States like California and New Jersey, they note, have implemented similar surtaxes without experiencing significant outmigration.

Morally, proponents argue, those with more resources have a responsibility to help those with less—especially in a post-COVID era when many low-income families continue to struggle.

Yet critics, including the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) along with the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce and businesses, warn that such a tax could signal to entrepreneurs and investors that Rhode Island is “business unfriendly.” They contend that higher income taxes might discourage business investment and hiring, harming the state’s long-term economic prospects.

Some opponents cite Connecticut’s experience in the early 2010s, when a handful of wealthy taxpayers reportedly relocated after tax hikes, resulting in noticeable revenue loss. Given that a small number of high earners contribute a significant share of state income tax revenue, even limited outmigration could have an outsized fiscal impact, critics argue.

Skeptics also question whether new revenue will be reliably dedicated to education, infrastructure, and social programs. They point out that in the past, even funds placed in restricted accounts were sometimes redirected to fill budget shortfalls.

Aging Programs and Services at a Crossroads

“Rhode Island stands at a crossroads,” warns Carol Anne Costa, Executive Director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI). With a projected $220 million deficit and potential federal cuts to programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and services provided by the Office of Healthy Aging, Costa insists that passing HB 5473 and S. 329 is essential to preserve and expand supports for older adults and people with disabilities.

“Most of our state’s older residents are not wealthy,” Costa notes, citing Census data showing that one in four older households earns less than $25,000 annually, and 45% earn less than $50,000. Only about 8% of older households earn more than $200,000.

In FY 2023, 27,535 Rhode Islanders aged 65 and older were enrolled in Medicaid, which funds the majority of long-term services not covered by Medicare. In addition, 14% of older adults in the state relied on SNAP benefits to help cover food costs.

Costa argues that revenue from the proposed surtax could ensure continued funding for these essential programs and expand the Medicare Savings Program. Such an expansion could save low-income seniors and adults with disabilities up to $185 per month in Medicare Part B premiums—money they need for food, housing, and transportation.

While critics warn of wealthy residents fleeing Rhode Island if taxes increase, Costa cites a comprehensive report by the Economic Progress Institute refuting this claim. “In fact, the data suggests the opposite,” she says. “Higher-income tax filers are moving into Rhode Island more than they are leaving.”

Costa also points to Massachusetts as a real-world example. After voters approved a 4% surtax on income over $1 million in 2022, the number of Massachusetts residents with a net worth over $1 million increased from 441,610 to 612,109 by 2024, according to an April report from the Institute for Policy Studies and the State Revenue Alliance.

Business Community Pushes Back

At the House Finance Committee hearing, Laurie White, President of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, voiced strong opposition to the proposed tax.

“Our views reflect those of thousands of local businesses statewide,” she said. “Rhode Island is already in fierce competition with neighboring states to attract and retain businesses, residents, and talent.”

White warned that the surtax would send the wrong message, particularly as Rhode Island invests in high-wage sectors like life sciences and technology. “Tax burden is a key factor in business decisions, and an increase in personal income tax would significantly reduce Rhode Island’s appeal,” she stated.

House GOP Minority Leader Michael W. Chippendale (R-Dist. 40, Coventry, Foster, Gloucester) echoed White’s sentiments: “Taxing people who have worked hard and become prosperous is an insult to the American dream. We shouldn’t be punishing success—we should be creating an economic environment where everyone can thrive. Driving away high-income residents with more taxes is backward thinking.”

Chief of Staff Sue Stenhouse confirmed that the entire 10-member House Republican caucus stands united in opposition to the surtax.

The Washington, DC-based Tax Foundation also weighed in. In written testimony on S. 329, Senior Policy & Research Manager Katherine Loughead stated that if the surtax were enacted, Rhode Island would move from having the 14th-highest to the 8th-highest top marginal state income tax rate in the nation—excluding the District of Columbia. She warned that this could make Rhode Island less attractive to high-income earners than even Massachusetts.

So What’s Next?

Costa maintains that taxing the wealthiest residents may be both a necessary and viable solution to protect the state’s safety net amid budget shortfalls and looming federal cuts.

However, with HB 5473 and S. 329 still being held for further study, it remains unclear whether they will be included in the final state budget.

“As we approach the final weeks of the session, there is no shortage of meritorious proposals that affect state resources,” said House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi (D-Dist. 23, Warwick). “The uncertainty of the federal funding picture and the numerous holes in the Governor’s proposed budget complicate both balancing this year’s budget and planning for the unknown. I continue to keep many options on the table for this challenging task.”

Stay tuned—SACRI and other aging advocacy groups are watching closely to see what options will be considered by the House Speaker when he releases FY 2026 state budget to address funding for programs and services that support Rhode Island’s growing older population in this difficult fiscal year.

To read submitted emails and testimony on S. 329, go to https://www.rilegislature.gov/senators/SenateComDocs/Pages/Finance%202025.aspx.

To read written testimony submitted on HB 5473, go to https://www.rilegislature.gov/Special/comdoc/Pages/House%20Finance%202025.aspx.