Presidential candidates mostly mum on ‘saving’ Social Security

WASHINGTON — The winner of this year’s presidential election could very well be holding the reins when it comes time to address Social Security’s complicated financial situation.

The program, which millions of retirees depend on for income stability, will see benefits cut by nearly a quarter in 2033 if Congress and the White House haven’t reached agreement before then.

And while both Democrats and Republicans say they want to “save” Social Security, there’s very little agreement or specifics in their campaign platforms about how lawmakers should avoid a reduction in benefits, or even when negotiations should begin.

Social Security is one of the more important topics a political candidate can talk about, given that 57% of voters said “securing Social Security” was a top priority for them when Pew Research Center surveyed adults in 2022.

And Social Security recipients are more likely than many other age groups to vote. The longer lawmakers wait to address the solvency crisis, the harder it will be to fix the problem, a frustrating situation for those who have been talking about it for years.

“We have to redefine what the third rail is,” Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said during a discussion on Social Security last year. “The third rail, according to our leading presidential candidates, is that you pretend there’s nothing wrong with Social Security.”

Cassidy, the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, criticized the leading presidential contenders during that April discussion for not having more detailed, proactive plans for avoiding a reduction in Social Security benefits.

“It’s going to require a president to provide leadership in bringing a bipartisan group together to avoid this 24% cut that’s scheduled to occur,” Cassidy said.

Whoever wins the presidential election in November would hold the title until at least January 2029, just a few years before the cliff is set to take effect, absent action by Congress. But, neither President Joe Biden nor any of the top Republican primary contenders have laid out detailed proposals or gone beyond talking points.

Dan Adcock, director of government relations & policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, said during an interview with States Newsroom that it “behooves the president to try to come up with a proposal that would extend solvency and not have to wait until the last minute.”

The longer the next president and Congress put off negotiations about potentially changing benefits or possibly increasing revenue, or both, “the effectiveness of those proposals go down as you get closer to the solvency day,” Adcock said.

One of the main obstacles once talks do begin, he said, is that Democrats and Republicans “seem to be diametrically opposed to the other side’s solution.”

Then, the politics will come into play, potentially causing issues for those in the GOP.

“Especially on the Republican side, there is a growing understanding that proposals to cut benefits are deeply unpopular, even amongst their own political base,” Adcock said. “And so they’re trying to come up with other ideas to suggest ‘Well, let’s grow the economy’ and ‘Let’s drill for oil,’ and ‘Let’s find other sources of revenue.’ But I’m skeptical that those are really what you need to extend solvency.”

Here’s what the leading contenders for president have said about addressing Social Security’s financial problems.

Joe Biden: The president’s latest budget proposal said his administration “is committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security and opposes any attempt to cut Social Security benefits for current or future recipients.”

The budget request, however, didn’t include details about how Biden wants lawmakers to address the looming solvency issue with Social Security. And the White House hasn’t taken steps to begin serious negotiations with lawmakers.

Donald Trump: During a town hall with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in early December, the former president suggested the United States should sell more fossil fuels to address Social Security finances.

“You don’t have to touch Social Security,” Trump said. “We have money laying in the ground far greater than anything we can do by hurting senior citizens with their Social Security.”

Trump criticized other GOP presidential candidates for suggesting that the United States should increase the eligibility age for Social Security, saying that raising it to 75 would lead to people being “devastated.”

Nikki Haley: In a September speech laying out her economic proposals, the former South Carolina governor said she promised to “protect those receiving Social Security and Medicare.”

“We’ll keep these programs the same for anyone who’s in their 40s, 50s, 60s, or older, period,” Haley said. “And we’ll preserve Social Security and Medicare for the next generation.”

Haley said she would change the eligibility age “for younger people who are just entering the system” and that she planned to “limit benefits for wealthy people.”

“I recognize that Social Security and Medicare are the last thing the political class wants to talk about. Well, I just did,” Haley said. “Any candidate who refuses to address them should be disqualified.”

Ron DeSantis: The Florida governor indicated during an interview on Fox News that he doesn’t support changing Social Security benefits for current retirees, though he would be open to altering how the program works for younger people.

“I’m a governor of Florida; of course we’re going to protect people’s Social Security,” DeSantis said. “My grandma passed away when she was 91. That was her sole source of income. That’s true for millions of seniors. So that goes without saying.”

Chris Christie: The former New Jersey governor said during the GOP debate in November that the biggest factors affecting Social Security are eligibility for the program, the age when people can begin collecting either partial or full benefits and taxes.

Christie said Americans are already “overtaxed” and ruled out that change. On eligibility, he said that wealthy people shouldn’t be able to collect Social Security, but didn’t list a threshold for cutting off access to the program for those with high incomes.

Christie declined to go into specifics about raising the eligibility age, but said his 30-year-old son should be able to adjust his retirement savings if the federal government were to increase the age when Americans can begin collecting either partial or full Social Security benefits.

Vivek Ramaswamy: The entrepreneur has said during debates and on the campaign trail that he doesn’t want to see any cuts to Social Security for retirees, but he hasn’t released a proposal for how to avoid the reduction in benefits that will take effect in a decade if the government doesn’t address the program’s financial situation.

“So this is really important right now,” he said in response to a question about Social Security during the November debate. “We’re working within the last window, I believe we will have to actually fix this problem while still leaving Social Security and Medicare benefits for current seniors intact.”

He said preserving Social Security could be achieved with proposals that are highly unlikely to ever move through Congress, including reducing the number of federal employees by 75%. He also proposed eliminating military assistance and foreign aid.

Special Illustration via Georgia Recorder