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

US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less