Commentary
After decades of kicking the can down the road, there are growing signs that Congress may finally be willing to confront the looming Social Security solvency disaster.
Two proposals now receiving significant attention are the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act of 2026 (H.R. 9187), introduced in June, and the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone (PROMISE) Act (S. 4979), introduced in July.
Both are worthwhile efforts. But it is important to understand what they would actually do—and why they fall short of the solution Americans deserve.
H.R. 9187 would create a 13-member bipartisan commission charged with developing, for presentation to Congress, a non-amendable proposal to restore Social Security solvency for 75 years. The PROMISE Act, meanwhile, would direct the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) to compile a 50-year solvency proposal for submission to Congress, which could be amended.
Importantly, the PROMISE Act guarantees Congress an expedited opportunity to force the SSAB plan onto the floor, and guarantees a final vote if Congress votes to proceed—but it does not guarantee that the SSAB’s original proposal itself receives an up-or-down final vote.
Related Stories
These bills could help Congress reach a solution. But neither is itself a solution. If both passed tomorrow, not one Social Security check would change. Congress would still have to make the difficult policy choices necessary to restore solvency.
Those choices are becoming more painful the longer lawmakers wait.
The Trustees estimate that achieving 75-year solvency immediately would require raising the combined payroll-tax rate from 12.4 percent to 16.65 percent, cutting scheduled benefits by 25.2 percent, or adopting an equivalent combination of changes. Waiting until 2032 would require still larger adjustments.
Congress has heard these warnings before. The 1989 Trustees Report highlighted the need to deal with deficits projected for future years, while the 1983 Greenspan Commission was tasked with addressing the current and long-term financial condition of the trust funds. Four decades later, the problem is no longer a lack of information. The challenge is finding the political will to act.
A benefits cut of any size has long been considered the “third rail” of American politics. Raising additional revenue means tax increases. Adjusting when or how benefits are distributed creates its own political risks. That is precisely why commissions and public input can be useful—but only if they ultimately lead to action.
In our conversations with members of the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), we hear a recognition that Social Security cannot remain frozen in place while the country around it changes. Americans are living longer, the 65-and-older share of the population is projected to rise from 17 percent to 23 percent by 2050, and the economy looks very different than it did when Social Security was created. Preserving the program for today’s retirees and for their children and grandchildren will require responsible trade-offs now rather than far more painful cuts later.
First, the plan would gradually raise the full retirement age from 67 to 70, while retaining early eligibility at 62 and ultimately indexing the retirement age to longevity.
That is not painless, particularly for Americans who have spent decades in physically demanding jobs. But a gradual adjustment gives workers and families time to plan, while preserving the option to claim benefits earlier. Refusing to make any change, by contrast, does not preserve the status quo; it moves the program closer to an abrupt across-the-board cut.
Second, the Guarantee would use progressive price indexing to reduce future benefit growth for higher earners while protecting lower earners to a greater degree. This recognizes that reform should not fall equally on Americans with vastly different financial resources.
Third, the plan would raise the taxable wage cap until roughly 90 percent of covered earnings are subject to payroll taxes. In other words, beneficiaries would not be asked to shoulder the entire burden of restoring solvency; higher earners would contribute more as well.
The Guarantee also includes provisions to increase survivor benefits for lower-income widows and widowers, eliminate the retirement earnings test, guarantee at least a 1 percent annual cost-of-living adjustment, and create or improve supplemental retirement savings.
Some pain will be necessary to avert the escalating insolvency crisis, and it is time our leaders were honest about that fact. The status quo cannot continue forever. The choice is whether Congress makes gradual, deliberate reforms now or waits until insolvency forces far more disruptive changes later.
The new congressional proposals are encouraging first steps. But after decades of warnings, studies, and commissions, Congress no longer has the luxury of treating another plan as the finish line. Whatever process lawmakers choose, it must end in action.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
