Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s plan for Social Security risks undermining its future

Medicare Health Insurance Card. Social Security Card with Stethoscope and pen
Bill Oxford/Getty Images

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised to end taxes on Social Security benefits. Many seniors naturally responded positively to this idea, and he was rewarded with their votes. It’s easy to see why many would agree with this idea on the surface. After all, workers already pay taxes on their earnings throughout their careers. These taxes are used to fund future Social Security benefits. Retirees would be excused for thinking that they’re being taxed twice.

However, the reality is far more complicated — and potentially disastrous. By law, taxes on Social Security benefits are funneled back into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Ending this revenue stream would have serious financial consequences, accelerating the insolvency of both programs. This would put the benefits that millions of American seniors depend on at grave risk.


The numbers tell a bleak story. A Wall Street Journal piece notes the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that ending taxes on Social Security benefits would reduce revenue to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by between $1.6 trillion and $1.8 trillion over the next decade. This would accelerate the insolvency of Social Security by a full year, bringing its projected bankruptcy date to 2032. Medicare would fare even worse, facing insolvency in 2030 — six years earlier than current projections.

The consequences of these changes would be dire. Without enough funding, Social Security and Medicare would face catastrophic benefit cuts, forcing millions of seniors to suffer due to reduced incomes and limited access to health care. These programs were designed as safety nets, but Trump’s proposals would rip giant holes in that fabric, leaving some of America’s most vulnerable citizens exposed.

Trump’s promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits is just one piece of a broader campaign to reduce taxes on income such as tips and overtime pay. While these ideas may seem attractive to the average taxpayer, together they threaten to explode the federal deficit. These policies ignore the critical role tax revenue plays in sustaining essential programs and ensuring their long-term viability.

The short-term appeal of these proposals must be carefully balanced against their long-term consequences. While seniors might save a small amount initially, the financial foundation of Social Security and Medicare would crumble, creating a much greater economic burden in the future. Popular promises often carry hidden costs, and in this case, the cost would be the stability of the very programs that seniors rely on.

The debate over taxing Social Security benefits raises legitimate questions about fairness in the tax code. However, solutions that undermine the solvency of critical programs are plainly reckless. Instead of proposing policies that threaten Social Security and Medicare’s future, Trump should focus on strengthening these systems to ensure they can support current and future generations.

Trump’s plan played well on the campaign trail, but its implications are clear: His promises risk dismantling the foundations of America’s social safety net. For the millions of Americans who depend on these programs, that is a gamble they cannot afford.

Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less