Every two years, particularly during the midterm or general election cycles, politicians use the words “Social Security” as a trigger to get voters in their 60s or older out to the polls.
In the 2024 election, Kamala Harris accused President Donald Trump of plotting out ways to cut Social Security benefits to retirees. On the other side, Trump promised not to cut Social Security benefits, and hasn’t officially cut benefits like Harris predicted he would since taking office.
But Social Security shouldn’t be used as a political tool on a campaign trail. At its core, Social Security is a safety net for retirees and families of recently deceased workers. The main focus is to provide income stability, prevent poverty and improve the general welfare of American citizens.
Outside of election cycles, Social Security is brought up at another important time of year for Americans: tax season.
Just as Americans do every year, they’ve recently filed their tax returns. With this time of year, scrutiny of government taxation has become emphasized. Alongside this, Americans have been more aware of economic hardships that have had adverse effects on families and the economy. This has consequently led many eyebrows to be raised at the taxed amounts that come out of wallets; and with this comes Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) and Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA) taxes.
The taxes collected from FICA and SECA directly bankroll Social Security, being pooled into the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds. But Americans have become more skeptical of what Uncle Sam does with easily collected and hard-earned cash that is paid to the government. After all, libertarian and conservative criticism of government spending has paved the way for Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to begin its work of saving taxpayer dollars, beyond the $160 billion in government waste that DOGE says it has saved.
However, for decades now, political analysts have been critical of how Social Security has been neglected by elected officials. Some analysts project that by 2033-2034, the OASI fund will be exhausted. This means that all reserves the fund holds now will be depleted in the future, making the program insolvent, and Social Security funding will be reliant on payroll taxes. Based on the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees’ projections, when the OASI fund is depleted, only 79% of the scheduled benefits promised to Americans would be covered. The other 21% would be up in the air.
The same problems that are facing Social Security are also present with Medicare and Medicaid; each being government programs providing medical care for the elderly, disabled or poor. But the only solutions we seem to get from politicians are soundbites from when they appear on the morning shows to campaign on solving the Social Security crisis, proposals that are going nowhere quick or attacking the other side for mishandling the issue. The point is that we never have any meaningful action or legislation that could reshape or solve the problem. This boils down to Republicans and Democrats failing to work together.
Hillary Clinton, former President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were all, at one point, seen as leaders of the Democratic party and campaigned on expanding Social Security. After all, the Democratic Party’s Platform for 2024 made a bold statement of ownership of Social Security, as the program came about initially from Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, and the fact that any of these three candidates campaigned on it should surprise no one. While Joe Biden won the presidency, there has been no expansion of Social Security to speak of, and this shouldn’t necessarily fall on Clinton, Harris or Biden’s shoulders, but rather the congressional candidates whose campaigns benefitted, and particularly those that succeeded, from the Social Security messaging coming from the top of the ticket.
Congress has proved to Americans that it doesn’t have a spine strong enough to work up a bipartisan, fair and adequate solution to the perils facing Social Security, and both parties are to blame. The gridlock has a chokehold on the debate and both parties want to understandably control the solutions. But this isn’t how the government is intended to work.
At the end of the day, Social Security benefits aren’t dispersed differently to Republicans than they are to Democrats. Just like how benefits are dispersed, the solutions should be indifferent to political parties. The fact of the matter is that millions of Americans rely on benefits to sustain themselves, their families and their livelihoods, and it is absolutely inexcusable for politics to infringe on any of these areas when they shouldn’t.
Because of this, what is owed to every American is less political grandstanding, less campaigning on potential solutions regarding Social Security and more governance. The problems demand it, and Americans are owed it.
It seems like only divine intervention might pull together a solution on this issue. While that seems highly unlikely, a good suggestion for legislators to start tackling this issue so that it is solved would be to drop the partisanship and begin doing their jobs so that they don’t find out too late that they mishandled this issue when they, themselves, retire.
Michael Duke, GSB ’26, is a business administration major from Scottsdale, Arizona.
