SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
social security works
Social Security Defenders Say Trustees Report Shows Expansion—Not GOP Cuts—Is Path Forward
"Any politician who doesn't support increasing Social Security's revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts," said one advocate.
Jun 18, 2025
A U.S. government report released Wednesday found that the combined Social Security trust funds will not be able to pay out full benefits to recipients come 2034, unless federal lawmakers act—an announcement that prompted defenders of Social Security to call for increased revenue for the social safety net program.
The report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds found that the former's two funds will be exhausted a year earlier than expected, and when that happens payroll tax revenue and other income sources will be able account for 81% of benefits owed to beneficiaries.
According to the report, the two funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—could "not actually be combined unless there were a change in the law, but the combined projection of the two funds is frequently used to indicate the overall status of the Social Security program."
The OASI Trust Fund will pay 100% of total scheduled benefits until 2033, after which point the program income will be able to pay 77% of total scheduled benefits. At the end of last year, 60.1 million people received OASI benefits.
The report states that the Social Security Fairness Act, an expansion to the program that was signed into law in early January, is part of the reason for the gloomier financial outlook.
Social Security has "a modest funding shortfall, which is still years away. There is no question Congress will act to avert the shortfall, as it always has in the past. The question is what Congress will do," said Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, in a statement on Wednesday.
"There are two options for action: bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn't support increasing Social Security's revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts," she continued.
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the advocacy group the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, struck a similar line on Wednesday.
"What's needed—and what the majority of the American people support—is increasing revenue flowing into Social Security, which has been capturing a declining share of income as wealth inequality worsens," he said. He noted that "the payroll wage cap" is depriving the system of adequate revenue. Wages up to $176,100 are taxed at 6.2% for Social Security as of 2025.
"It is time to adjust the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy begin paying their fair share," according to Richtman.
Advocates also used the release of the report to denounce any targeting of Social Security, especially efforts to undermine the Social Security Administration carried out by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
During the first few months of Donald Trump's second presidency, billionaire Elon Musk, who was tapped to lead DOGE, and his allies fanned a false narrative alleging rampant fraud at the Social Security Administration, and used those "claims to justify an aggressive effort to gain access to personal information on millions of Americans," according to June reporting from the The New York Times.
Due to pressure from DOGE, nearly 50% of the Social Security Administration's executives and thousands of employees there have left, either by retiring or taking buyouts. Per the Times, as much as 12% of staff is expected to leave because of DOGE's cost-cutting efforts.
"Despite Donald Trump's promise to protect Social Security, Elon Musk's DOGE is undermining it every day," said Altman, referencing the Times' reporting, including the loss of senior executives. "This is an incalculable loss of institutional knowledge and expertise."
Richard Fiesta, the executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, also called out DOGE's work at the Social Security Administration, and referenced efforts to raise the Social Security retirement age beyond 67.
While there is no current legislative push to increase the Social Security retirement age, in December three Republican senators voted for a failed amendment that would have gradually raised the Social Security retirement age. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky put the amendment forward in response to the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act.
"Republicans in Congress have made clear they are eager to cut the benefits Americans have worked a lifetime to earn," according to Fiesta.
According to the report, the two funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—could "not actually be combined unless there were a change in the law, but the combined projection of the two funds is frequently used to indicate the overall status of the Social Security program."
The OASI Trust Fund will pay 100% of total scheduled benefits until 2033, after which point the program income will be able to pay 77% of total scheduled benefits. At the end of last year, 60.1 million people received OASI benefits.
The report states that the Social Security Fairness Act, an expansion to the program that was signed into law in early January, is part of the reason for the gloomier financial outlook.
Social Security has "a modest funding shortfall, which is still years away. There is no question Congress will act to avert the shortfall, as it always has in the past. The question is what Congress will do," said Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, in a statement on Wednesday.
"There are two options for action: bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn't support increasing Social Security's revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts," she continued.
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the advocacy group the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, struck a similar line on Wednesday.
"What's needed—and what the majority of the American people support—is increasing revenue flowing into Social Security, which has been capturing a declining share of income as wealth inequality worsens," he said. He noted that "the payroll wage cap" is depriving the system of adequate revenue. Wages up to $176,100 are taxed at 6.2% for Social Security as of 2025.
"It is time to adjust the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy begin paying their fair share," according to Richtman.
Advocates also used the release of the report to denounce any targeting of Social Security, especially efforts to undermine the Social Security Administration carried out by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
During the first few months of Donald Trump's second presidency, billionaire Elon Musk, who was tapped to lead DOGE, and his allies fanned a false narrative alleging rampant fraud at the Social Security Administration, and used those "claims to justify an aggressive effort to gain access to personal information on millions of Americans," according to June reporting from the The New York Times.
Due to pressure from DOGE, nearly 50% of the Social Security Administration's executives and thousands of employees there have left, either by retiring or taking buyouts. Per the Times, as much as 12% of staff is expected to leave because of DOGE's cost-cutting efforts.
"Despite Donald Trump's promise to protect Social Security, Elon Musk's DOGE is undermining it every day," said Altman, referencing the Times' reporting, including the loss of senior executives. "This is an incalculable loss of institutional knowledge and expertise."
Richard Fiesta, the executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, also called out DOGE's work at the Social Security Administration, and referenced efforts to raise the Social Security retirement age beyond 67.
While there is no current legislative push to increase the Social Security retirement age, in December three Republican senators voted for a failed amendment that would have gradually raised the Social Security retirement age. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky put the amendment forward in response to the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act.
"Republicans in Congress have made clear they are eager to cut the benefits Americans have worked a lifetime to earn," according to Fiesta.
Asked About Backing 'Largest Cuts in History' of Medicaid, GOP Rep. Miller-Meeks Has No Comment
"Does it concern you that you only won by 800 votes?" asked the executive director of Social Security Works.
May 20, 2025
Ahead of a "Hands Off Medicaid" rally planned in Republican U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks' district in Iowa, the economic justice group Social Security Works on Tuesday wanted to see if the congresswoman had a message for her constituents about the vote she cast in favor of advancing massive cuts to Medicaid.
"Rep. Miller-Meeks, I'm wondering if you have any comment on the healthcare that 67,000 people in your district are going to lose?" asked Alex Lawson, executive director of the group, following the congresswoman down a hallway on Capitol Hill as she made her way to an elevator reserved for lawmakers.
Miller-Meeks sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which last week was one of three committees to advance part of President Donald Trump's legislative agenda, including more than $700 billion in federal healthcare cuts.
Progressives have focused heavily on Miller-Meeks as Republicans in Congress have grappled with how to secure tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that would blow a $3.8 trillion hole in the federal deficit. Miller-Meeks, who won her reelection campaign by just 800 votes in 2024, is among the swing district Republicans whom advocates have pressured to reject Medicaid cuts that would harm their constituents.
As Miller-Meeks attempted to ignore Lawson and said she had "no comment," Lawson noted that she previously "lied" to Social Security Works and said she wouldn't support Medicaid cuts.
"But then you actually voted for the largest cuts to Medicaid in the history of the country," he said. "Do you have any comment on that? Do you have any comment on the four hospitals in your district that are going to close because of your vote?"
Finally Lawson asked whether Miller-Meeks has given any thought to how her vote could impact her political future in a district where about 102,500—16%—of her constituents depend on Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which would also be slashed under the Republican bill.
"Does it concern you that you only won by 800 votes?" Lawson asked before Miller-Meeks got on the elevator.
Social Security Works urged voters in Iowa's 1st District to join the group Wednesday for its rally in Jasper County, and to ask the congresswoman—who's also a doctor—"why she's cutting $700 billion from Medicaid."
One advocate, Mathew Helman, posed a question to Miller-Meeks on social media: "If you ran for Congress honestly on your actual platform of slashing Medicaid and closing Iowa hospitals, how do you think you'd do?"
GOP Cuts to Medicaid 'Will Kill People,' Advocate Warns and New Research Bolsters
A working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Medicaid expansion saved over 27,000 lives since 2010.
May 16, 2025
Critics who say extensive cuts to Medicaid being pushed by the Trump administration and House Republicans will result in the deaths of people were bolstered Friday by new reporting on a recent study detailing how the key health program for the nation's poor saves lives.
As Republicans in Congress pressed ahead this week with a plan that would cause at least 8 million Americans to lose Medicaid as part of a sweeping tax and spending bill desired by U.S. President Donald Trump, a recently published working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, first reported on by The New York Times, shows that Medicaid expansion saved over 27,000 lives since 2010.
A provision in the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which went into effect in 2014, allowed states to expand eligibility for Medicaid to all low-income adults regardless of disability or parenthood status. The change is part of the reason that enrollment in the program rose roughly 50% between 2010 and 2021, according to the authors of the study.
The study, which used a dataset of 37 million low-income American adults, found that expansions increased Medicaid enrollment by 12 percentage points. The study estimates that people who enrolled in Medicaid were 21% less likely to die compared to those not enrolled.
"These expansions appear to be cost-effective, with direct budgetary costs of $5.4 million per life saved and $179,000 per life-year," according to a summary of the working paper.
The researchers told the Times that the timing of the release of the working paper was not connected to Congress' current conversation around Medicaid, though they told the outlet that the debate made their findings especially relevant.
The Times described the research as "the most definitive study yet" on Medicaid's health effects and health economists not involved with the research described it as the most persuasive proof so far that Medicaid and other types of health insurance save lives.
Meanwhile, on Friday, efforts to pass the GOP megabill hit a stumbling block when a handful of Republican so-called "fiscal hawks" voted with Democrats on the U.S. House Budget Committee to block the reconciliation package from advancing through a key committee vote. The Republican hardliners voted no because they want more cuts to Medicaid.
After the vote, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a panel member, vowed that Democrats would "keep fighting to protect Medicaid and the American people."
In response to the House Budget Committee vote, Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works said on Friday: "Make no mistake, Republicans still plan to bring it to the House floor next week."
Lawson blasted the proposed Medicaid cuts, writing that "their plan will kill people."
"The ripple effect of these cuts will hit every single person in this country," he added. "Unless you are a billionaire, your standard of living and your health care will get worse if this despicable plan becomes law."
Most Popular