This article summarizes a congressional hearing. The views expressed by participants do not necessarily reflect those of Across the Aisle™ or its programs, including Free the Facts™ and Answer the Call™.
Social Security's insolvency is less than a decade away, and Congress is running out of time to stop it.
A recent Senate Budget Committee hearing titled “Social Security: A Discussion on the Facts and the Path Forward” made two things clear: this problem is complicated, and Congress has options to address it.
The discussion was led in part by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI). They were joined by Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), with Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) as witnesses.
What they discussed.
If you have been following the issue, you know the year 2032 looks bleak for Social Security. At this point, the program’s trust fund is expected to run dry, and automatic, across-the-board cuts to retirement benefits will take effect. For a simple breakdown of how we got here and why this matters for you, see our Social Security primer.
The committee members’ suggested solutions for this crisis varied, but there was a common theme: Senators want to work together and find solutions.
Some committee Republicans wanted to address Social Security’s insolvency without raising taxes. Majority witness Sen. Bill Cassidy, for instance, outlined his "Save, Strengthen, and Secure” proposal, which “...infuses money into the program by creating a sovereign wealth fund….” This means that Social Security benefits could be paid out of a pool separate from the Social Security Trust Fund, avoiding insolvency. Sen. Johnson, on the other hand, called for investing the existing trust fund into index funds and growing it over time.
While the Republicans focused on structural reform, committee Democrats focused on raising revenue. Sens. Ron Wyden, Alex Padilla, Ben Ray Luján, and Patty Murray argued that the program’s current payroll tax system is unfair. Minority witness Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse told the committee, “High-earners do not pay their fair share into the program compared to teachers, firefighters, and others.”
Various Democrats suggested eliminating the taxable maximum, taxing investment income, and increasing taxes on high-income earners. This could provide a cash injection to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, working across the aisle to fix Social Security’s insolvency is a must. Sen. Kaine particularly embodied this spirit of bipartisan cooperation by voicing his support for some Republican investment-based solutions. Likewise, Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced his support for the Democrats’ proposal to raise taxes on high earners.
What this means for you and me.
Imagine Congress implements an investment-based solution, like Sen. Cassidy’s plan. That would mean:
- Payroll taxes stay the same.
- Social Security funding levels depend on financial market behavior, which could pose risks to the program.
Now, imagine Congress eliminates the taxable maximum. That would mean:
- Social Security is kept separate from potentially unstable financial markets.
- High-earners pay a tax on all of their income, not just up to the current taxable maximum. That means higher taxes for some Americans.
The good news is that solutions to insolvency are out there — now it's up to Congress to work together on a way forward.
If you want to be part of that conversation, don’t miss our Social Security primer, and sign up for our TL/DR: DC newsletter.


.webp)






