Social Security is one of the most pressing concerns for voters this November. The trust fund is projected to dry up in about 10 years, yet efforts to reform it have stalled, and neither presidential candidate seems inclined to weigh in. This Washington Examiner series, Social Security Stakes, will look into how we got here, what could be done, and if anybody has the stomach to tackle it.
Efforts to shore up Social Security have stalled out even though only a decade is left before the program’s combined trust fund, to the extent that reform is a nonfactor in the elections even though Social Security is a top concern for voters.
Earlier this year, trustees for Social Security and Medicare, on which tens of millions of people rely, projected that the Old-Age & Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be able to pay 100% of total scheduled benefits until 2033. After that, retirees would face an immediate cut of 21% to their benefits.
Voters are worried about the program’s survival, but any politician seeking to ensure it’s upheld will quickly encounter resistance. That’s because voters are highly skeptical of changes that would lower program spending, such as hiking the retirement age or reducing benefits. There’s also stiff opposition to tax hikes to bring in new revenues.
As a result, this election year, candidates have spoken more about other hot-button concerns, such as inflation, immigration, and abortion.
Still, an analysis by the Associated Press about what election matters are being searched on Google most from earlier this year found that Social Security was often in the top three most searched topics, even ahead of abortion and immigration some weeks.
Last year, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) made waves when he called for the formation of a bipartisan fiscal commission to study and make recommendations to stabilize Social Security and Medicare. In the following months, a bill to create such a commission made it through the House Budget Committee, but members of the commission still haven’t been picked.
Otherwise, though, there has not been much in the way of proposals from key office-seekers. Neither of the leading presidential contenders has much of a plan to shore up the program.
“Harris and Trump have promised that there will be no changes to Social Security for its benefit level, which means essentially, both Harris and Trump have committed us to staying on the road to Social Security insolvency within a decade,” Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute, told the Washington Examiner.
For a Republican, former President Donald Trump has aggressively opposed changing benefits. During a town hall on Fox News last year, Trump hit other Republican presidential contenders, such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, for wanting to make changes to Social Security to stabilize it. He suggested that economic growth and allocating money from energy production could be used instead of raising the retirement age or cutting benefits.
“We have money laying in the ground far greater than anything we can do by hurting citizens with their Social Security,” Trump said.
But the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that advocates lowering deficits, released an analysis saying that such a move wouldn’t work.
The group found that dedicating current oil and gas leasing revenues to Social Security would cover less than 4% of its shortfall. Additionally, the CRFB found that even if all federal land were open to drilling, it wouldn’t be enough to fix the program.
Additionally, in a video discussing his agenda, Trump suggested that he would work to stabilize the entitlement program by finding efficiencies and cutting in other areas.
“Cut the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars going to corrupt foreign countries,” Trump said. “Cut the mass releases of illegal aliens that are depleting our social safety net and destroying our country. Cut the left-wing gender programs from our military. Cut the billions being spent on climate extremism. Cut waste, fraud, and abuse everywhere that we can find it, and there’s plenty of it.”
Trump has also suggested eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, which would further undermine the program’s financial footing.
“The job of politicians is to confront hard truths, and it’s disappointing that Trump and Harris are just pandering to Americans who want to believe that Social Security can be fixed without any pain for them,” Riedl said.
Vice President Kamala Harris has not offered specific plans as a presidential candidate for shoring up Social Security’s finances, although as a senator, she backed legislation offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that would have expanded Social Security benefits. It would have also instituted a new investment tax and applied the Social Security payroll tax to earnings above $250,000 (under current law, it’s capped at about $170,000). Outside analyses found that the plan would improve Social Security’s solvency.
But her proposed payroll tax hike could be more modest. Harris’s campaign has said she supports the proposed tax increases that were part of President Joe Biden’s 2025 budget proposal. One of those would be to reinstate the payroll tax on earned income in excess of $400,000.
A tax hike of that size, though, would be a political liability.
Because all the realistic options for reforming Social Security are unpopular, neither candidate has sought much of an advantage on the matter.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Harris has tried to attack Trump over Social Security, inaccurately saying that Project 2025, a set of proposals published by Republicans and some former Trump officials, reveals that Trump intends to cut Social Security. The document in question, though, does not call for benefit cuts, and Trump has disavowed Project 2025.
Beyond that, the election looks as though it will not feature much campaigning on Social Security, despite its relevance to voters.