SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trump and the Republican Party want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse–because they don’t believe in it. In fact, at its start, they called it socialism and voted against its creation. Today, it puts the lie to their view that government is the problem, not the solution.
On Labor Day, we celebrate the contributions of workers. The best way to honor those contributions is to increase their compensation. A key part of their pay is deferred compensation in the form of Social Security. Working families earn their Social Security when they work and collect benefits when their work stops as the result of old age, disability, or death, leaving dependents.
It is well past time to expand those earned Social Security benefits. Congress has not increased them in over half a century.
Whether to expand or cut Social Security is a matter of values, not affordability. That value choice is on the ballot this November. The two major parties have very different values when it comes to Social Security.
Democrats recognize that expanding Social Security is a solution.
It is a solution to the nation’s retirement income crisis, where too many workers will never be able to retire without drastic reductions in their standards of living. As traditional pensions continue to disappear, replaced (if they are) by riskier, less reliable, inadequate 401(k)s, Social Security is more vital to American workers’ economic security than ever.
To advance his goal of undermining Social Security, Donald Trump grabbed the questionable power to go after its dedicated revenue unilaterally—something without precedent.
Social Security is strikingly superior to its private-sector counterparts. It is extremely efficient, secure, nearly universal, excellent for both long-term and mobile workers, and fair. Its one shortcoming is that its benefits are too low. By expanding those modest Social Security benefits, we are increasing the security of all of us.
In recognition of Social Security’s increasing importance for workers and their families, several bills have been introduced during this Congress to expand Social Security’s modest benefits, and the Biden-Harris administration has said it supports those efforts.
Representative John Larson’s (D-CT) Social Security 2100 Act, which has over 185 cosponsors, would increase benefits across-the-board for all current and future Social Security beneficiaries. It would improve the annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to better match the true costs that seniors and people with disabilities face. The bill would improve benefits for widows and widowers, students, children living with grandparents, public servants, the most elderly Americans, lower-income seniors, those with disabilities, students, and more. And it pays for all of this by making the wealthy finally pay their fair share.
Similarly, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have introduced the Social Security Expansion Act. Their proposal would increase Social Security benefits across-the-board by $200 a month and update the way that COLAs are determined to better reflect the costs seniors and other beneficiaries face. Further, it would update and increase the minimum Social Security benefit and restore student benefits. Again, it would pay for all of these increases and restore Social Security to long-range actuarial balance by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.
Additional bills that would make positive changes to Social Security have been introduced as well. All of these bills not only address our nation’s looming retirement income crisis, but other challenges the nation faces, including rising income and wealth inequality. In fact, rising inequality has cost Social Security billions of dollars each year. Those are billions of dollars that should go to expanding Social Security.
In short, Democrats want to expand Social Security and ensure that all benefits can be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future, by requiring billionaires and other uber-wealthy to start paying their fair share.
In stark contrast, Republican politicians see Social Security not as the solution it is, but as a threat. On top of that, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to give even more tax breaks to the uber-wealthy. They certainly don’t want to force their plutocrats to pay their fair share to Social Security.
Republicans want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse–because they don’t believe in it. In fact, at its start, they called it socialism and voted against its creation. Today, it puts the lie to their view that government is the problem, not the solution.
Consistent with that antipathy, when Trump was president, he included, in every one of his four budgets, proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare. When he couldn’t get the cuts enacted, he employed the old tactic of “starve the beast.” Figuring tax cuts are easier to enact than benefit cuts, he cut income taxes which are used to fund Medicare and Medicaid, and sought to defund Social Security, which has its own dedicated revenue.
To advance his goal of undermining Social Security, Donald Trump grabbed the questionable power to go after its dedicated revenue unilaterally—something without precedent. Because Trump was limited to executive action, he was able to only defer the revenue, but he made clear that he would not just defer the revenue, but push to eliminate it, if he were re-elected. And, he has stated that Social Security cuts are on the agenda if he is elected to a second term.
That is the choice in November: Trump-Vance and their Republican colleagues want to cut Social Security and give handouts to the wealthiest. Harris-Walz and their Democratic colleagues want to expand Social Security’s modest, but vital benefits, while requiring those with incomes above $400,000 to pay their fair share.
Indeed, Harris and Walz have advocated this for a long time. Vice President Kamala Harris was an original cosponsor of the Social Security Expansion Act when she was in the Senate. And when her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, was in Congress, he was an original cosponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act.
Every generation has built on the strong foundation laid down 89 years ago, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt—and his Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins (the first woman ever to serve in a presidential cabinet)—shepherded Social Security into law. But it was not without a fight.
For those who believe in the value of Social Security and the freedom that economic security brings, let's honor our working families this Labor Day by doing what we can to ensure that the party that created Social Security, and has always protected and expanded it, wins big this November.
We’re not going back on Social Security. We're not going back on Medicare. We're not going back on lower drug prices.
Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, have proclaimed, “We’re not going back!” Seniors and our families agree. We are definitely not going back on Social Security, Medicare, or drug prices. Rather, we are going forward. Forward to expanded Social Security, expanded Medicare, and lower drug prices.
We’re not going back to half of all seniors with below-poverty incomes. Before Social Security, people worked as long as they could, but the fast pace of many jobs “wears out its workers with great rapidity,” a commentator noted in 1912. “The young, the vigorous, the adaptable, the supple of limb, the alert of mind, are in demand,” he explained. “Middle age is old age.”
Once a job was lost, an older worker could seldom find a new one. Parents, as they aged, routinely moved in with their adult children. Those who had no children or whose children were unable or unwilling to support them wound up in the poorhouse. Literally. The poorhouse was not some ancient Dickensian invention; it was a very real means of subsistence for elderly people in the world before Social Security.
We are going forward. Forward to expanded Social Security, expanded Medicare, and lower drug prices.
When Social Security became law, every state but New Mexico had poorhouses. The vast majority of the residents were elderly. Most of the “inmates,” as they were generally labeled, entered the poorhouse late in life, having been independent wage earners until that point. In 1910, a Massachusetts Commission found that 92 percent of the residents entered after age 60.
The poorhouse was a fate to be dreaded. Even in as progressive a state as New York, the conditions were abysmal. In 1930, the New York State Commission on Old Age Security found that “worthy people are thrown together with whatever dregs of society happen to need the institution’s shelter at the moment…Privacy, even in the most intimate affairs of life, is impossible; married couples are quite generally separated; and all the inmates are regimented as though in a prison or penal colony.”
A return to that may seem impossible, but it is not. If Social Security did not exist today, more than forty percent of those aged 65 and over would once again have below-poverty incomes.
We’re not going back! Before Social Security, the death of one parent frequently meant the breakup of a family. Orphanages housed children with a living parent who had been unable to afford them, when the other parent died. People who became disabled and could no longer work routinely could be found begging in the street.
Those families now have guaranteed monthly benefits, thanks to Social Security, which lifts almost a million children and more than 5.3 million adults between the ages of 18 and 65 out of poverty. And our Social Security system lessens the depth of poverty for millions more.
Republicans want to take us back. They want to end Medicare as we know it.
But Republican politicians want to take us back. They have put out plans that not only would cut Social Security, but end it as we know it. We cannot let them take us back.
Instead of going backwards, we can and must go forward. Vice President Kamala Harris and her Democratic Party have plans to expand Social Security for seniors, for those with disabilities and for families experiencing the death of a provider.
In fact, when Harris was in the Senate, she was an original cosponsor of the Social Security Expansion Act, and when her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, was in the House of Representatives, he was an original cosponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act. Both bills expand benefits across-the-board, update the cost of living adjustment, so benefits don’t erode over time, expand benefits in other important ways, and ensure that those benefits can be paid on time and in full for the foreseeable future, by requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.
And we’re not going back to a time without guaranteed government-provided health insurance for seniors and people with disabilities. Before President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965, most seniors were not able to find health insurance at any cost. For those who could, the coverage was inadequate and the cost was exhorbitant.
We can and must go forward. Harris and her Democratic colleagues want to expand Medicare. The essential benefits of vision, hearing and dental services must be added and the need for supplemental insurance must be eliminated. And Medicare should be extended to children and all ages in between.
We’re not going back to Big Pharma ripping off Medicare beneficiaries. For years, politicians promised to rein in Big Pharma and empower Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. The Biden-Harris administration got it done.
If you too are determined to not go back on these important freedoms, the choice in November is clear.
Republicans want to take us back. They want to end Medicare as we know it. They want to replace it with vouchers, forcing seniors to fend for themselves in a hostile marketplace. Additionally, they have promised to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and let Big Pharma charge whatever outrageously high prescription drug prices they decide. We’re not going back to Medicare beneficiaries paying more than $35 per month out-of-pocket for insulin. We’re not going back to Medicare beneficiaries paying more than $2,000 out-of-pocket per year for Medicare Part D prescription drug spending.
Instead, we will go forward to a future of even lower prices for even more prescription drugs. And that future must include providing those lower prices for all Americans.
We’re not going back to a world without the Affordable Care Act. We’re not going back to a world without Medicaid expansion, without coverage for “pre-existing conditions.”
That is just some of what is at stake in November.
We’re not going back to a world where Republicans hand out tax breaks to billionaires. We want to protect Social Security and expand benefits, paid for by requiring billionaires and other uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.
Social Security Works is proud to stand with Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Walz in the fight for freedom. The freedom to retire with dignity and independence. The freedom to get the medical care we need. The freedom to get the drugs our doctors prescribe.
If you too are determined to not go back on these important freedoms, the choice in November is clear. Let’s unite and usher in a future that takes us forward together.
How do we know? He's already told us—over and over and over again.
Donald Trump was the worst president for seniors in the history of the nation. That is not hyperbole. Alarmingly, if elected again, he will be even worse—and, worryingly, more effective.
When Trump ran for president in 2016, he claimed he would be the one Republican not to cut our earned benefits but, when he actually became president, every single one of his budgets proposed deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid.
When Trump couldn’t get the cuts enacted, he employed the old tactic of “starve the beast.” Figuring tax cuts are easier to enact than benefit cuts, he cut income taxes which help to fund Medicare and Medicaid, and sought to defund Social Security, which has its own dedicated revenue source.
Don’t be fooled. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and drug prices are on November’s ballot. Donald Trump will be more effective this time around.
To advance his goal of undermining Social Security, Donald Trump grabbed the questionable power to go after its dedicated revenue unilaterally—something without precedent. Because Trump was limited to executive action, he was able to only defer the revenue, but he made clear that he would not just defer the revenue, but eliminate it, if he were re-elected. Insufficient dedicated revenue leads to automatic cuts. Conveniently, automatic cuts means there is no one to clearly be held accountable.
Trump’s goals to undermine these programs, so vital to seniors, have not changed. Trump continues to claim he won’t cut benefits despite his record to the contrary, but tells the truth from time to time. Moreover, he is reportedly considering, once again, defunding Social Security, if he has the chance. Trump also plans to continue to give his billionaire friends massive tax giveaways.
Watch a montage of Trump promising to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid:
Here is a montage of Trump calling to cut Social Security and Medicare pic.twitter.com/agwOuxlFCm
— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) June 11, 2024
And we know what those cuts will look like. The Republican Study Committee, which includes 80 percent of all House Republicans and 100 percent of House Republican leadership, releases a budget every year. Every year, it contains deep, draconian cuts and radical transformative proposals for Social Security. Indeed, its recently-released FY 2025 budget slashes Social Security’s already inadequate benefits by $1.5 trillion in just the first ten years. In fact, it cuts Social Security by $73 billion in the first year alone.
These are much deeper cuts than are necessary to eliminate Social Security’s modest projected shortfall. And they would occur much sooner than if Congress did nothing whatsoever! Even worse, the Republican proposal would radically transform Social Security, ending it as we know it.
Social Security provides wage-related benefits designed to maintain one’s standard of living when wages are lost in the event of old age, disability, or death. Today’s extreme Republicans want to instead provide only subsistence-level benefits, designed to barely keep beneficiaries above abject poverty. And these radicals propose to privatize Social Security and Medicare, on top of that.
For years, politicians have talked about giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. Biden got it done. Thanks to Biden, out-of-pocket insulin costs have been capped at $35 per month, hearing aids are cheaper, and inhaler prices are lower. If Trump wins a second term, he has made clear he will seek to repeal those reforms, just as he sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Nor will Medicaid be spared.
None of this should be a surprise. Before running for president, Trump slandered Social Security by calling it a Ponzi scheme – an illegal enterprise used to dupe and defraud the unsuspecting. He supported privatizing Social Security and raising the retirement age, with the condescending remark, “how many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?”
Before running, Trump praised proposals by former Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan that would have destroyed Medicare by turning it into a voucher program, forcing seniors to fend for themselves in a hostile market.
And there’s more evidence of Donald Trump’s true plans. Look who Trump surrounded – and continues to surround – himself with. Everyone around Trump is hostile to these programs.
In 2016, Donald Trump picked Mike Pence to be his running mate, despite the fact that Pence had a clear record of favoring cuts to these programs, including raising the retirement age and privatizing our earned benefits. Pence wouldn’t help Trump steal the 2020 election so he is being replaced – but not because of his policy views on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those who are reportedly being considered have as hostile or even worse views than Pence.
And Trump’s other appointments were no better. Just to name two, Trump appointed extreme Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid opponent Mick Mulvaney as his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and later chief of staff. Mark Meadows, another Trump chief of staff (currently under indictment) also has a long record of supporting massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Perhaps even more concerning than Trump’s hostility to programs that are vital to seniors is his utter disregard for their health and well-being. It was seniors who overwhelmingly bore the brunt of Trump’s completely incompetent handling of the COVID pandemic. Too many Americans, disproportionately seniors, died because of Trump.
Democrats want to expand Social Security, expand Medicare, lower drug prices, and force billionaires and multinational corporations to pay their fair share.
Rather than deal effectively with the pandemic, Trump’s administration shockingly used it to further Trump’s goal of undermining Social Security. At the height of the pandemic, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner proposed pressuring desperate Americans, thrown out of work because of the impact and dangers of COVID, to trade their earned Social Security benefits for upfront, immediate cash. Fortunately, it went nowhere, but did show a single-minded effort to rip away the protections of Social Security despite where the focus should have been – on saving lives.
It is essential that the American people not be fooled by the rhetoric. Trump has shown he understands how unpopular cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, and raising drug prices are with everyone but his billionaire donors. But he showed early on that he understood the politics. In 2011, for example, Trump told Sean Hannity that Republicans “are going to lose elections” if they “fall into the Democratic trap” of advocating cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid without bipartisan cover.
So don’t be fooled. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and drug prices are on November’s ballot. Donald Trump will be more effective this time around. The choice is clear: Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, and increase the already-huge profits of drug companies while giving tax breaks to Big Pharma and their other billionaire friends. Democrats want to expand Social Security, expand Medicare, lower drug prices, and force billionaires and multinational corporations to pay their fair share.
For the sake of all of our economic security, it is essential that the American people, and seniors in particular, understand this fundamental difference between the two parties and vote accordingly.