zimmytws | iStock | Getty Images
A protester disrupted a January congressional session committee hearing Consider a bill that would create a bipartisan commission to address Social Security issues. “A vote for committee is a vote to cut Social Security,” the man shouted before being escorted off the floor.
Despite protests that day, the idea of a committee was met with unanimous opposition, but there was also strong support from pundits and politicians on both the left and the right.
The Joint Trust Fund, on which Social Security relies to pay benefits, is currently expected to be depleted by 2035.
But another date — the depletion of trust funds earmarked for retirement benefits — is coming. Less than a decade later, in 2033, Social Security may be paying only 79% of those benefits.
A majority of Americans (89%) believe Congress should take immediate action to ensure current and future recipients receive full benefits, 2023 AARP poll finds. Ninety percent said Republicans and Democrats should work together to find solutions.
“As Americans, we all want to get into a room, face the facts, make hard choices, and then communicate to the public how to save this,” Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said in an interview. plan.
Peters is working with Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.), Sen. Joe Manchin (R-Va.) and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). Let’s move forward with the Finance Committee Bill.
The bill would create a commission to provide policy recommendations to address the federal government’s long-term fiscal problems, recommendations that could receive fast-track consideration by Congress. The committee will also be responsible for conducting a public information campaign to educate Americans about the country’s current fiscal situation.
Another Democratic leader — Connecticut Rep. John Larson — strongly opposed the proposal because of the closed-door nature of the negotiations and any subsequent recommendations that would be prioritized.
“This is probably one of the most undemocratic things ever proposed in Congress,” Larson said.
Instead, Larson is supporting his own bill, Social Security 2100, to increase the program’s solvency and expand benefits through tax increases on the wealthy.
Social Security advocacy groups have also staunchly opposed efforts to create a commission.
“This is a thinly veiled effort to avoid political accountability,” Social Security chief Nancy Altman recently testified at a congressional committee hearing in April.
How the last major reform came about in 1983
On April 20, 1983, President Reagan signed the Social Security Act Amendments into law.
Kobis | Getty Images
The last major social security reform was enacted in 1983 and was preceded by the establishment of a commission.
The National Commission on Social Security Reform was established in 1981 and is often called the Greenspan Commission, named after its chairman, economist Alan Greenspan, who is better known as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
“Of course, most commissions don’t do anything,” Greenspan wrote in his 2007 memoir, “Turbulent Times.” “But (White House Chief of Staff) Jim Baker, the architect of this project, firmly believes that government has a role to play.”
The bipartisan commission includes 15 members selected by the White House, Senate Majority Leader or House Speaker. Greenspan said each committee member was “an all-star in his or her field.”
“I am running this committee in the spirit of Jim Baker’s vision to achieve effective bipartisan compromise,” Greenspan wrote.
More from Personal Finance:
How Supplemental Security Income Benefits Might Change After the 50th Anniversary
Why more people aren’t waiting to collect Social Security — and what experts say
Huge wealth transfer or retirement savings crisis? Experts say both are possible
The group faced a daunting task – coming up with recommendations to address the funding crisis the scheme was facing at the time.
Greenspan wrote that the Social Security Amendment Act signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 “brought pain to everyone.”
These changes include increases in Social Security benefit taxes, payroll tax rates, increases in future retirement ages and a near-term delay in cost-of-living adjustments.
At the time, the changes were expected to allow Social Security to pay full benefits through 2057.
Today, the expected date is 2035, Income inequality widens for Exhaustion date postponedAccording to the Economic Policy Institute and other experts. The income limit for Social Security payroll taxes is $168,600. EPI said that as top earners’ salary growth outpaced average salary growth, more income fell below the threshold that exempts them from paying the Social Security payroll tax.
‘This is not an example of a successful bipartisan committee’
The 1983 legislation is often touted as a great bipartisan deal between Republican Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass.
However, some participants on the Greenspan Commission opposed it as a model for future reform.
One prominent critic was Robert M. Ball, who served as Social Security commissioner under three presidents and represented O’Neill on the Greenspan Commission.
“However, nothing can hide the fact that the National Commission on Social Security Reform was not a model of a successful bipartisan commission,” Ball wrote in part of a memoir he was writing when he died in 2008. The Greenspan Commission : What Really Happened? was published in 2010.
“After agreeing on the scale of the problem that needed to be addressed, the committee itself stalled – essentially reaching an impasse, although negotiations continued,” Power wrote. “As a committee, this is as far as it goes. ”
Social Security Committee Chairman Alan Greenspan (left) shakes hands with Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley before a Social Security hearing on February 15, 1983. Bob Dole, chairman of the Social Security Council. In the background is Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth.
Bateman | Bateman | Getty Images
Most recently, in November, five of the committee’s staffers—including Altman, who served as Greenspan’s executive assistant on the Social Security staff—issued a statement urging policymakers not to use it as a tool for quick-fire reforms, including welfare cuts).
“In the end, they left a whole bunch of problems to Congress, and Congress solved it,” Bruce D. Schobel, who serves as the committee’s actuary and signed the statement, told CNBC express.
Staff noted that similar efforts since 1983 to establish a commission to consider Social Security issues had failed.
“Congress should, as it always does, address Social Security issues under the sun through standing orders,” the staff wrote.
Lawmakers divided on best path forward
Today, lawmakers are divided over the best path to address society’s safety concerns.
Larson, a Democratic congressman who represents Connecticut, hopes to advance his bill.
Social Security 2100 currently has nearly 200 Democratic House co-sponsors. The bill would provide a series of benefit increases, including a 2% increase in benefits across the board, which would be paid for through increases in Social Security wages and investment taxes for individuals earning more than $400,000.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., have introduced similar proposals that would increase taxes on those making more than $250,000.
Larson predicted that if Social Security 2100 is passed, it will likely pass “overwhelmingly” on a bipartisan basis.
“Congress needs to vote,” Larson said.
But Peters, the Democratic congressman who represents California, said that even under Democratic control of the White House and Congress, Social Security 2100 has failed to make progress, but he believes that a bipartisan commission is the solution.
“I think the other efforts are honest efforts, but they’re not going to pass,” Peters said.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) holds a press conference on the Democrats’ “Securing and Expanding” Social Security plan at the Capitol Visitor Center on May 23, 2023. Reps. John Larson, D-N.Y., Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., Jeffries, D-Calif. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., and Richard Neal, D-Mass.
Tom Williams | Chongqing Roll Call Company | Getty Images
He said lawmakers facing a 21% across-the-board benefit cut could negotiate a reduction to 15% if they waited until the last minute before the projected exhaustion date.
“If I wanted to cut Social Security, if that was my goal, I would do nothing,” Peters said. “My goal is not to make any cuts.”
He said the 1983 reform effort was a lesson not to wait until the last minute.
“In the current situation, when you say ‘don’t touch Social Security,’ it’s like telling doctors not to treat cancer patients in the hospital,” Peters said. “It’s just stupid.”
Finance Committee Act has drawn criticism from Social Security advocates on the left and prominent figures on the right, including the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Grover NorquistPresident, Americans for Tax Reform.
Peters sees the opposition as a sign they are in the “right place” for bipartisanship.
“I don’t understand why anyone would do this job if they don’t want to solve these big problems,” Peters said. “That’s why we’re explicitly sent here.”
Experts including Altman say the future of Social Security will be on the ballot this November.
AARP poses a question—what is your position on Social Security? —To all candidates for federal office this year.
