By Jennifer Shutt, States Newsroom
WASHINGTON — Nearly all of the U.S. senators elected this year will be in office when Congress debates how to restructure Social Security to prevent an automatic drop-off in retirement benefits in 2032.
Very few candidates in competitive races, however, have policy proposals on their campaign websites and many, when contacted by States Newsroom, declined to share details about which changes they’d support if elected.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said even though Social Security’s financial woes have been discussed more during this year’s campaign cycle, most candidates have shied away from getting into the weeds.
“What’s really disappointing is nobody is talking about a realistic suite of options that will fix it,” she said. “There are a few who will mention lifting the payroll tax cap, which is probably the most often cited policy, but that on its own won’t fix the program.”
Workers now pay a 6.2% tax that goes directly to Social Security, though that doesn’t apply to earnings above $184,500.
MacGuineas said one upside to this year’s campaign cycle is more voters understand that a candidate promising not to touch Social Security guarantees the automatic benefit cut in 2032, which will worsen over time.
But, she said, she understands why candidates would want to wait until they are actually elected to Congress to go into detail about something that was once widely considered the third rail of American politics.
“It’s been so long since politicians have been honest about what Social Security faces and what fixes will be required,” MacGuineas said. “An election cycle is not where you’d expect a 180-degree switch into a direct conversation. I think this is the first step, and hopefully, post-midterms, we are able to start having that conversation.”
Shai Akabas, vice president of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said candidates need to be honest with voters about the changes they’ll likely have to make to Social Security.
At the same time, he said, politicians need to hear from Americans that they understand Congress must take some action in the years ahead.
“Until we get that two-way street working, it’s going to be really hard to move anything into law,” he said.
Candidates, and those who work for them, have plenty of resources to study up on Social Security’s financial problems and explore the numerous changes that could be combined to avoid a 22% reduction in benefits from taking place in 2032.
“It’s not like policymakers are entering into a novel problem that has unexplored solutions,” Akabas said. “They’re walking on well trodden ground and it is more about finding the political will to put those solutions together to create a bipartisan reform package than it is creating solutions from scratch.”
While Akabas said it’s important for candidates to discuss realistic solutions on the campaign trail, the job of fixing the program would be less fraught if undertaken in a bipartisan way.
“If the two parties together hold hands and say, ‘Here’s a reform that we’re going to put in place, and yes, it has difficult decisions, but it’s the right thing to do for the country,’ I think our polling shows that that could be reasonably well received,” he said. “If, on the other hand, a candidate is putting that proposal out by themselves, it is extremely easy for the other side to message, ‘This candidate just wants to raise your taxes’ or ‘This candidate just wants to cut Social Security.’”
Here’s what politicians running in close Senate races say about Social Security on their websites and shared with States Newsroom when asked for which detailed policy changes they’d support if elected to Congress.
Alaska
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Michigan
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Texas