The potential beneficiary of the presidential election this year may find themselves in a position of authority when it comes to tackling the intricate financial predicament of Social Security.
If Congress and the White House are unable to agree in 2033, benefits for the program, which provides income security for millions of retirees, will decrease by almost a quarter.
And even though both Democrats and Republicans claim they want to “save” Social Security, their campaign platforms contain little agreement or specifics regarding when negotiations should begin or how legislators should prevent benefit cuts.
Social Security is among the most significant issues a political candidate can address, given that 57% of adults surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2022 identified “securing Social Security” as a high priority.
Additionally, recipients of Social Security are more inclined to vote than many other age groups.
Fixing the solvency crisis will become more difficult the longer legislators delay doing so; this is a frustrating development for those who have been debating the issue for years.
Last year, during a discussion on Social Security, Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy stated, “We must redefine what the third rail consists of.” “Our leading presidential candidates assert that pretending there is nothing wrong with Social Security constitutes the third rail.”
Cassidy stated that the third rail, an enduring metaphor for sensitive policy matters that politicians prefer to avoid discussing, ought to concern the repercussions of allowing Social Security to surpass the fiscal precipice, which would result in a substantial reduction in benefits and a twofold increase in “the rate of poverty among the elderly.”
He stated, “That ought to be the third rail.” “Therefore, the conversation must shift to that.”
During that April discussion, Cassidy, the ranking Republican on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, criticized the leading presidential candidates for lacking proactive, more detailed strategies to prevent a reduction in Social Security benefits.
Cassidy stated, “A president will be required to demonstrate leadership in uniting a bipartisan group in order to prevent this scheduled 24% cut.”
Only a few talking topics
In the absence of congressional action, the incumbent president in the November election would retain office until at least January 2029, which is only a few years prior to the scheduled implementation of the cliff.
However, in contrast, none of the leading Republican primary candidates, including President Joe Biden, have presented comprehensive proposals or departed from mere rhetoric.
In an interview with States Newsroom, Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, stated that “the president should make every effort to develop a proposal that would extend solvency without having to wait until the last minute.”
According to Adcock, as the solvency day approaches and the next president and Congress delay negotiations regarding potential changes to benefits, revenue increases, or both, “the effectiveness of those proposals diminishes.”
He stated that the fact that Democrats and Republicans “appear to be diametrically opposed to the other side’s solution” will be one of the primary obstacles once negotiations do commence.
Then, politics will likely intervene, which could cause complications for members of the GOP.
Adcock stated, “There is an increasing recognition, particularly among the Republican party, that propositions to reduce benefits are profoundly unpopular, even among their own political base.” “As a result, they are endeavoring to generate alternative concepts to propose in lieu of “Let’s drill for oil” and “Let’s expand the economy” and “Identify additional revenue streams.” However, I am not convinced that they are precisely what is required to prolong solvency.
According to surveys, the American public would rather see Social Security taxes raised than benefits reduced. 61% of respondents to a December Gallup survey believed the federal government should increase Social Security taxes, whereas 31% believed benefits should be reduced. The remaining individuals expressed a lack of stance.
This trend has been observed for approximately two decades, as per previous Gallup polling.
Here is what the prominent presidential candidates have to say about resolving the financial issues at Social Security.
Biden
His administration “is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security and opposes any attempt to reduce Social Security benefits for current or future recipients,” according to Biden’s most recent budget proposal.
It stated, “The Administration eagerly anticipates collaborating with Congress to strengthen Social Security in a responsible manner by ensuring that high-income individuals pay their fair share.”
Biden did not specify in his budget request, however, how he would like Congress to tackle the impending solvency crisis with Social Security. Furthermore, the White House has yet to initiate substantive negotiations with lawmakers.
Concerning his Social Security proposals, the Biden campaign website lacks a policy section and no proposals. No response was received from the campaign in response to a request for further information.
Trump
Early in December, former President Donald Trump suggested during a town hall with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the United States should increase sales of fossil fuels in order to address Social Security funding.
Trump stated, “You are not required to touch Social Security.” “The amount of money buried is incalculable in comparison to the damage that can be done to senior citizens’ Social Security benefits.”
Trump criticized other Republican presidential candidates for proposing an increase in the Social Security eligibility age to 75, stating that it would “devastate” the American people.
Although the Trump campaign’s website features a policy section, it is devoid of any Social Security proposals. The campaign failed to provide a response to a query regarding details regarding the candidate’s election platform.
Haley
Former Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina pledged in a September speech outlining her economic proposals to “protect those receiving Social Security and Medicare.”
Haley stated, “We will maintain these programs for anyone in their forties, fifties, sixties, or older, without exception.” “Additionally, Social Security and Medicare will be preserved for future generations.”
Haley stated that the eligibility age would be increased “for younger individuals who are just entering the system” and that “benefits for the wealthy would be limited.”
“I acknowledge that discussing Social Security and Medicare is the last thing on the minds of the political class.” “Indeed, I just did,” Haley declared. It is necessary to disqualify any candidate who declines to address them.
There are no Social Security-related proposals on Haley’s campaign website, and the campaign did not respond to a request for information regarding the existence of such a proposal or its nature.
DeSantis
In an interview with Fox News, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis stated that he is not in favor of modifying Social Security benefits for active retirees. However, he did express a willingness to explore modifications to the program’s operation for younger individuals.
DeSantis stated, “As the governor of Florida, it goes without saying that we will safeguard the Social Security of the people.” “My grandmother died at the age of ninety-one.” Her primary source of income was from that. Million upon million of seniors agree. Consequently, that is self-evident ;”
DeSantis stated that discussing “making changes for people in their 30s or 40s so that the program is viable” would be a “substantially different matter.”
“And I believe that this is something that will require further discussion,” he stated.
The DeSantis campaign website lacks any explicit policy recommendations pertaining to Social Security.
Christie
Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie stated during the November Republican debate that eligibility for the program, the age at which individuals can begin receiving partial or full benefits, and taxes are the most significant determinants of Social Security.
Christie stated that the United States is “overtaxed” as it stands and rejected that change. Regarding eligibility, he stated that high-income individuals should not be eligible to receive Social Security, but he did not specify a threshold at which they could be denied access to the program.
Christie refrained from providing further details regarding the potential increase in the eligibility age. However, he did indicate that his 30-year-old son might be capable of modifying his retirement funds in the event that the federal government were to raise the age at which individuals can start receiving partial or complete Social Security benefits.
Christie stated, “We must address this issue,” proposing a “few years” increase in the eligibility age for individuals in their 30s and 40s.
“My thirty-year-old son is present in the audience tonight,” Christie disclosed. “I will have more significant issues with him than his Social Security payments over the next four decades if he is unable to adapt to a few-year increase in the retirement age for Social Security.”
Regarding the future of Social Security, Christie’s campaign website makes no mention of policy proposals or specifics regarding his position should he be elected president.
Ramaswamy
In debates and on the campaign trail, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy has stated that he opposes any reductions to Social Security for retirees. However, he has yet to present a proposal outlining a strategy to avert the benefit cut that will occur in ten years if the government fails to address the financial situation of the program.
He replied, “Therefore, this is extremely crucial right now,” in regard to a query concerning Social Security that arose during the November debate. “Because we are operating under a time constraint, I believe it will be necessary to resolve this issue while preserving the Social Security and Medicare benefits for current seniors.”
He stated that proposals that are exceedingly improbable to ever pass through Congress could still preserve Social Security, such as a 75% reduction in the number of federal employees. In addition, he suggested that foreign aid and military assistance be eliminated.
“I believe this is our final, best opportunity to address our national debt issue through those drastic measures, even if it means forgoing the foreign wars that a great number of bloodthirsty members of both parties crave,” he stated.
The campaign website of Ramaswamy lacks any propositions pertaining to the solvency of Social Security.
