Published in the Blackstone Valley Call & Times on September 8, 2026
By Herb Weiss
As reported by national media, President Donald Trump, standing in front of grocery items during an Aug. 24 campaign press conference at a golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, President Trump declared, “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” He pledged to lower the costs of everyday goods, including groceries and cars, as well as energy prices.
During his campaign, Trump on several occasions linked lower prices to an increase in the country’s domestic energy production by using the phrase “drill, baby, drill”. He maintained that cheaper energy would decrease the cost of producing and transporting food and other goods.
The time is running out; since there are 62 days left until the midterm elections, a national press campaign has been held as part of the ‘Republican Price Tag Campaign’ organized by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works and the Economic Security Project to advise voters about the promises made by Trump and congressional Republicans to reduce household costs and to argue that those promises have not been kept.
Household Expenses Skyrocket
Hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Economic Security Project Action, Social Security Works and Navigator Research, the virtual briefing highlighted an estimate that American families are paying $3,800 more each year for health care, food, energy, clothing and other necessities under President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Unrig Our Economy Campaign Director Leor Tal, who moderated the call, said Trump and congressional Republicans pledged to rein in rising prices, but argued that Republican economic policies have instead increased costs for working families and small businesses.
While wealthy Americans are getting tax breaks, Tal charged, working families are paying more for health care, groceries, energy and clothing. “Families are feeling every dollar of the Republican Price Tag,” she said.
During the 30-minute press call, two Democratic lawmakers and small business owners from Michigan, Arizona and Nebraska shared firsthand accounts of how rising costs are affecting their livelihoods. They pointed to tariffs and declining consumer spending as making it more difficult to operate their businesses and provide for their families.
In addition, Washington, D.C.-based Navigator Research, a Democratic-leaning public opinion research organization founded in 2018, presented polling data on how Americans view the economy and the rising costs hitting their household budgets.
“The Joint Economic Committee issued new analysis that found the average American family has had to pay almost $4,000 more because of rising prices under the policies and actions of this administration and my Republican friends in Congress,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA).
“What’s driving this figure? The biggest buckets are health care, grocery, energy costs, and housing,” said Beyer, the top-ranking Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Beyer also pointed to tariffs. “Our tariff policy is absolutely the highest it’s been since before Smoot-Hawley,” he said.
Health care and food assistance cuts are also hitting families, Beyer charged, citing changes affecting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Tariffs Drive Up Household Costs
Rep. Gabe Amo, representing Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, charged that congressional Republicans are supporting “a tariff regime that is raising costs” while taking the focus away from the economic challenges facing Americans.
During Aug. recess, Amo met with constituents across the first Congressional District and heard that people are feeling the squeeze. They told him how hard it was to afford groceries. Primary care providers shared how the Trump administration’s cuts to health care are making it harder for people to get care.
“I’m working with Unrig Our Economy and Social Security Works to make sure these voices are heard,” he said.But Amo brought a little optimism to the call’s otherwise downbeat assessment of the economy.
“I’m an optimist. I believe we can do better and will do better,” he said, adding that voters will have a choice in the upcoming election over the direction the nation takes.
“I look forward to continuing to hear from the people facing the challenges created by this administration and working on behalf of all Americans who deserve a government that wants them to have a better life,” Amo said.
For Michael Howard, a small-business owner in Macomb County, Michigan, rising prices have hit both his family and his business.
“As a parent, the rising cost of our economy feels crushing. And then as a small business owner, having that experience magnified is also pretty devastating for our business,” he said.
Howard says rising costs have made it harder to maintain staffing while customers have less money to spend. “As a dad just trying to put food on the table for my family, these increases to the cost of gas and necessities really set us back,” he said.
Increased lumber costs have also affected Howard’s custom furniture business. “The tariff policy is absolutely devastating for someone who builds with lumber,” he said.
Jenn Mawcinitt, owner of Wildlings Toy Boutique in Phoenix, Arizona, sees the impact when customers walk through her door.
“We have seen that our customers are having a harder time buying necessities like their gas and their food and their school supplies,” she said.
Tariffs, she says, have also dramatically increased toy prices. A mother who once came into her store looking for a $20 birthday gift may now find the same type of toy priced at $ 29.99.
“I think that people were promised lower costs during this administration, and I’ve heard it over and over again,” Mawcinitt said. “All I have seen is how this is affecting families, and how costs are rising at an exorbitant rate.”
Former York, Nebraska, business owner Jeff Du pointed to the rising cost of farm equipment. He said that new irrigation equipment that cost about $68,000 five years ago now costs more than $110,000.
Du says tariffs are helping drive up machinery costs. Add increased labor expenses, he noted, and farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase new equipment, with some leaving the business altogether.
During the final minutes of the virtual call, Melissa Tufanian, managing director of Navigator Research, turned to the polling numbers.
According to Tufanian, 73% of Americans view the economy negatively. More than three in five Americans are uneasy about their personal finances, which she said is the highest level since the start of Trump’s second term.
The polling also found that 25% of Americans are delaying the purchase of a home or car, while 15% have delayed or avoided medical care to save money. Another 25% are taking on more debt or using buy-now, pay-later programs, even to purchase groceries. Twenty percent reported withdrawing money from emergency funds to pay bills.
Navigator’s polling even found that nearly one in 10 Americans have sold blood plasma for extra income.
On the other hand, Republicans offer a much different assessment of the economy. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) argues that Republican tax cuts are allowing workers and families to keep more of their paychecks while encouraging businesses to invest, expand and hire.
Following the release of the August jobs report, Smith pointed to increased private-sector hiring and manufacturing growth as evidence that Republican economic policies are working.
The Trump administration also rejects Democratic criticism that its tariff policies are simply resulting in higher consumer prices. The White House argues that tariffs are prompting foreign companies to produce in the United States, thereby protecting American industries from cheaper foreign competition and leading to greater investment and more job creation within the country.
A Final Note…
Almost two months later, according to Fortune, Trump told a crowd at Wheeler High School in Marietta, Georgia, that affordability was “a word made up by the Democrats.”
AARP released the 2026 Financial Security Trends Survey on May 28, finding that 37% of older adults feel financially insecure, while 60% worry about having enough money to last through their retirement years.
Democrats certainly aren’t treating affordability as a made-up issue. They are betting that what voters, especially older voters, pay at the grocery store, gas pump, doctor’s office, and checkout counter will help determine who controls Congress after the midterm elections.
James Carville, a top strategist for Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign, famously summed up that winning campaign’s political strategy in just five words: “It’s the economy, stupid.”
More than three decades later, Democrats are dusting off Carville’s political playbook.
Whether it works again will be up to the voters.
Tag Archives for Social Security Works
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.
SSA Trustees Report Calls on Congress to Fix Social Security and Medicare
Published in RINewsToday on June 22, 2026
Congress faces the urgent legislative task of ensuring the long-term viability of the nation’s Social Security program. As in previous years, the Social Security Board of Trustees’ 2026 report warns that without congressional action, the OASI and DI Trust Funds will pay full benefits only through 2034. Afterward, payroll tax revenue will cover about 83% of scheduled benefits, highlighting the need for timely Congressional intervention.
Federal law requires that trust fund-financed programs such as Social Security and Medicare pay out only as much in benefits as they receive in revenues once their trust fund reserves run out.
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), about 21% to 22% of the U.S. population currently receives Social Security benefits. The released Trustee’s report notes that at the end of 2025, Social Security paid benefits to more than 70 million Americans: 56 million retired workers and their dependents, 8 million disabled workers and their families, and 6 million survivors of deceased workers. Medicare covered an estimated 69.3 million people.
The Trustees also said that recent congressional actions, including the Social Security Fairness Act and changes to the taxation of Social Security benefits, weakened the program’s long-term financial outlook.
The Social Security Board of Trustees is the group that issues the annual report on the financial health of Social Security’s trust funds — the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance fund and the Disability Insurance fund.
It has six seats:
1. Secretary of the Treasury — also the Managing Trustee
2. Secretary of Labor
3. Secretary of Health and Human Services
4. Commissioner of Social Security
5. Public Trustee appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
6. Public Trustee appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate
As of the 2026 Trustees Report, the current government-position trustees are:
· Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee
· Keith E. Sonderling, Acting Secretary of Labor
· Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services
· Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
The two public trustee seats are currently vacant
Demographic Changes Strain Social Security Finances
The annual Trustees Report, released on June 9, said several long-term demographic trends strain the financial stability of Social Security, as fewer workers pay payroll taxes into the program to support a growing population of beneficiaries.
Americans live longer and collect benefits for more years, while millions of Baby Boomers continue to retire. Birthrates stay below historical levels, so fewer workers enter the labor force. Lower levels of immigration increase financial pressure by reducing the number of workers who pay payroll taxes.
The combined Social Security trust funds are currently projected to pay full benefits through 2034. However, the outlook for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund has weakened slightly. Trustees project OASI reserves will be depleted in late 2032. At that point, revenues are expected to cover only about 78% of scheduled OASI benefits, compared to the overall 83% coverage for all Social Security benefits after combined depletion.
The Trustees Report also notes that Social Security’s disability program remains financially stable. The Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund is expected to stay adequately financed throughout the 75-year projection period and pay full benefits without interruption.
Taking a Look at Medicare
Also released on June 9, the 2026 Medicare Trustees Report found that Medicare remains financially stable in the near term but faces significant long-term funding shortfalls caused by rising health care costs and an aging population.
According to the Trustees, Medicare spending will grow faster than revenues dedicated to financing the program. The health care needs of retiring Baby Boomers, growing Medicare enrollment, rising medical costs, and increased spending for services used frequently by older adults—including skilled nursing care, home health care, and hospice services—largely drive this increase.
The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, which pays for Medicare Part A services, is projected to be depleted in the second quarter of 2033—three months earlier than last year’s prediction. After depletion, Medicare Part A would be able to cover about 89% of its costs from incoming revenue. Part A covers inpatient hospital stays, skilled nursing facility services, home health care, and hospice care.
Congress must act within the next seven years to prevent significant reductions in Medicare payments to providers. Addressing the projected shortfall before the 2033 trust fund depletion is essential to avoid an estimated 11% funding gap.
Unlike Part A, Medicare Parts B and D are not expected to face trust fund insolvency because they are financed through a combination of beneficiary premiums and general federal revenues.
Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), says a range of proposals could help extend the solvency of Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund without reducing benefits.
Among the options, says Richtman, are raising the Medicare tax rate on earned and investment income above $400,000 from 3.8% to 5%, and closing loopholes that allow some high-income business owners to avoid Medicare taxes by structuring income in ways that escape both payroll taxes and the Net Investment Income Tax (NIIT). NCPSSM also supports redirecting revenue from the 3.8% NIIT—currently deposited into general federal revenues—directly to the HI Trust Fund, he says, noting that the group estimates this change could generate roughly $500 billion over 10 years.
In addition, Richtman recommends building on the prescription drug reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act by expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices, accelerating negotiations as more medications are added, and extending inflation-rebate requirements to commercial insurance plans. Savings from these measures, he says, would be credited directly to the HI Trust Fund, further strengthening Medicare’s long-term outlook.
Reactions From Advocacy Groups and Lawmakers
In a statement, AARP CEO Dr. Myechia Minter-Jordan warned that the 2026 projections show Congress still must close a financing gap of nearly 20%, or Americans could face benefit reductions they cannot afford.
“This should be a wake-up call: Congress needs to act. Americans have worked hard and paid into Social Security their entire lives, and they deserve to count on it when they retire,” she said. “They planned for retirement, followed the rules, and now Congress must keep its promise by strengthening, not cutting, Social Security,” Minter-Jordan added, urging lawmakers to work across party lines to strengthen the program.
“The Social Security Trustees Report is a clarion call for Congress to strengthen the program now before the looming depletion of the trust fund becomes a full-blown crisis,” said NCPSSM’s Richtman in a released statement.
“If Congress fails to act, the combined retirement and disability trust fund reserves will run dry in 2034, and beneficiaries will suffer an automatic 17% cut—a scenario few want to see happen. Lawmakers should not wait until the last minute when options become more limited and remedies more costly,” he said.
Richtman also argued that benefit reductions are not necessary to restore Social Security’s financial health and that beneficiaries living on fixed incomes should not bear the burden of strengthening the program.
In a statement, Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, likewise emphasized that the Trustees Report demonstrates the consequences of inaction.
“As the Trustees Report plainly states, if there is insufficient revenue, Social Security benefits will be automatically cut,” Altman said.
On June 15, 2026, House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a Louisiana radio interview that Republicans would like to address the growth of mandatory federal spending programs in future budget discussions, including Social Security. He argued that the federal budget is increasingly driven by automatic spending commitments and said that Social Security and other entitlement programs “have to be adjusted and fixed.”
Responding to Johnson’s remarks, Altman argued that some Republican proposals would move Social Security toward privatization, a characterization that supporters of those proposals dispute. She also criticized proposals that would reduce future benefits rather than increase revenues to strengthen the program.
Public opinion surveys consistently show strong bipartisan support for preserving Social Security benefits. Altman argued that proposals to reduce benefits through means testing or other changes would be unpopular with voters and called on congressional candidates to explain how they would address the program’s long-term financing challenges.
During a June 10 morning hearing of the Joint Social Security and Work & Welfare Subcommittee with Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, held in room 1100 at 100 Longworth House Office Building, Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) noted that Social Security benefits have only been modified twice in 40 years, most recently in 1983, with only minor changes under his chairmanship of the House Committee on Ways and Means in 2025.
“Congress needs to get its act together to address Social Security and the insolvency that’s coming instead of poking blame at other people when it is our duty, our responsibility,” Smith said, urging bipartisan cooperation between Republicans and Democrats to reform the program. He called for the protection of vulnerable populations who depend entirely on Social Security for retirement and a dignified standard of living, particularly in the rural communities they represent.
“This latest report from the trustees is proof that Congress must step up now to protect Social Security before it’s too late. It’s only going to cost more and be more difficult to solve the longer we wait,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a statement issued on June 10, outlining his plan to rescue Social Security by creating a sovereign wealth fund independent of the Social Security Trust Fund.
Cassidy joined Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) in issuing a bipartisan statement following the release of the Trustees Report. The senators said that “Congress shouldn’t delay any longer” and urged lawmakers to begin debating and voting on proposals to strengthen Social Security’s long-term solvency.
Putting Social Security on the Ballot
The Trustees’ Report makes it very clear that Social Security and Medicare are not facing an immediate financial crisis. Both programs will continue paying benefits for years to come. However, these reports also warn Congress that delaying action will make the eventual policy solutions more difficult to achieve and potentially more disruptive.
Many Republican proposals focus on slowing future benefit growth through measures such as raising the retirement age, modifying cost-of-living adjustments, or expanding means testing, while many Democrats favor increasing revenues by requiring higher-income Americans to contribute more into the system.
Over a year ago, lawmakers introduced a major bill to rescue Social Security and Medicare. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act (S. 1690) to ensure both programs remain stable in the future. The plan raises money by closing tax loopholes for ultra-wealthy Americans, but it completely shields anyone making under $400,000 a year from paying higher taxes. Representative Brendan F. Boyle (D-PA) brought the exact same bill to the House floor at the same time.
Legislative proposals, such as Whitehouse’s, to adjust the taxable wage cap or apply payroll taxes to certain forms of investment income have also been offered as ways to ensure Social Security’s fiscal solvency.
A new voter education campaign is highlighting the financial challenges facing Social Security. Led by NCPSSM’s Richtman, the “Social Security is on the Ballot” initiative aims to build public support for legislative solutions, including Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Boyle’s proposed Fair Share Act, to help secure funding for the program.
There are many issues competing for voters’ attention this year,” explains Richtman, “But few will have such a profound effect on your future. Voters should insist [at the ballot box] that the fundamental promise of Social Security be preserved – as the program is strengthened for the future,” he said.
This multi-faceted campaign will encompass social media, short web videos, special editions of our “You Earned This” podcast and radio show, mailings, and grass-roots engagement/activism.
For over 70 million older Americans who rely on their Social Security and Medicare benefits, the Trustees’ Reports deliver a very clear message: Congress must act sooner rather than kicking the proverbial can down the road (as it usually has). As the projected trust fund depletion dates draw closer, lawmakers will need to work across the aisle to strengthen these programs and ensure they remain financially sound for current beneficiaries and future generations.
___
For a copy of the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, go to The 2026 OASDI Trustees Report
For a copy of the 2026 Medicare Trustees Report, go to 2026 Medicare Trustees Report
Herb Weiss 