...
By Suzanne Blake
Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Senator Patty Murray is warning voters that the future of Social Security could hinge on which party controls Congress after Tuesday’s midterm elections.
The Washington Democrat said the program could be "cut to ribbons" if lawmakers do not act to protect benefits.
“Republicans want to cut your benefits. Democrats want billionaires to pay their fair share. THIS is the Social Security election,” Murray wrote on X on Sunday.
Read More on Politics
“We do not want to see Social Security turn to dust or get cut to ribbons. We want to strengthen this program so we can keep our word to people who spent their lives paying into it.”
...
Why It Matters
Social Security's financial challenges are becoming increasingly urgent, regardless of which party controls Washington.
The 2026 Social Security Trustees Report projected that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivor benefits, will have enough reserves to pay scheduled benefits in full only until 2032.
If Congress takes no action by then, incoming revenue is projected to cover just about 78 percent of scheduled OASI benefits, which means there would be an automatic 22 percent cut for beneficiaries.
Related Story
Social Security Chief Reveals ‘First Solution’ to Fix Funding Crisis
What to Know
Murray's warning comes as Democrats seek to make Social Security a major dividing line in the midterm elections on Tuesday. Her argument is that lawmakers should address Social Security's financing gap by bringing more revenue into the system, particularly from wealthy Americans, rather than reducing benefits.
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in March, Murray argued that the wealthiest Americans should contribute more toward Social Security and warned against allowing workers and retirees to absorb large benefit reductions.
“When the richest people in the country have the smallest effective tax rate—that does not seem to me like a very fair system,” Murray said at the time. "Especially when we are now six years away from retired workers facing this 24 percent cut in their Social Security benefits, so I hope we all understand that and focus on that.”
However, the debate over the program's future is more complicated than an immediate choice between keeping or eliminating Social Security.
Lawmakers have a range of options for closing the financing gap, from raising the payroll tax rate to increasing the amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes as well as reducing scheduled benefits outright or combining revenue increases with benefit changes.
"Although I think her comments are hyperbole, she may have a point," Kevin Thompson, the founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, told Newsweek. "Trump has come out and said that we cannot afford daycare, Medicare and Social Security. He believes the primary role of the federal government should be to protect the country, with military funding remaining a priority."
Republicans have generally said publicly that they want to protect Social Security benefits, but Democrats have focused on comments from GOP leaders about the need to reform mandatory spending programs, which includes benefit programs like Social Security.
No matter who controls Congress after the midterms, the 22 percent cut will go into effect unless lawmakers can come together on a bipartisan solution to the funding shortfall, experts said.
“The upcoming depletion of Social Security's trust fund does make each year that reforms fail to be passed more pivotal,” Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. “Failure to act cut results in cuts down the road, and steps need to be taken now to ensure those don't happen.”
How Much Could Social Security Benefits Be Cut?
Under the trustees' projections, the OASI trust fund will be depleted in 2032. At that point, the ongoing income would be sufficient to cover only around 78 percent of scheduled retirement and survivor benefits. That would mean a roughly 22 percent cut relative to scheduled benefits.
Looking at the average retired worker benefit of about $2,088 per month, an estimated 22 percent reduction would amount to roughly $459 less per month.
"Both parties recognize Social Security as an impending issue, but they differ in how they believe it should be addressed," Thompson said. "Republicans tend to focus on eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, while Democrats generally view it as a more structural issue that may require increased taxation and additional funding to maintain benefits."
Social Security would not actually disappear or go bankrupt when its reserves are depleted and payroll taxes would continue flowing into the program. However, that revenue would not be enough to pay 100 percent of benefits currently promised under the law, creating severe financial consequences for retirees relying on the program for the bulk of their income.
"For the average retiree, the concern is whether their benefits will remain intact and whether future changes could impact their financial security," Thompson said. "I don't think Social Security will have much of an impact on today's election results, but we cannot say it will have zero impact."
What Happens Next
Regardless of Tuesday’s election outcome, the next several Congresses will face increasing pressure to address Social Security’s financing gap before the retirement trust fund's depletion in 2032.
However, Beene said it’s unlikely that lawmakers will actually allow Social Security funds to run out or the projected cut to go into effect.
“Regardless of which party comes up as the big winner from the midterms, the odds of Social Security beneficiaries seeing cuts to their monthly payments are incredibly low,” Beene said. “The millions of Americans who qualify for Social Security are also among the most reliable voters, and any lawmaker, regardless of party, would not want to gamble their future electability by supporting cuts.”
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jason Lemon and Dave Siminoff.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines