Lawmakers Revisit Bipartisan Commission to Avert Social Security Benefit Cuts by 2032

Key Takeaways

• Social Security’s trust fund is projected to run short of money in about six years, prompting lawmakers to revive a bipartisan commission proposal.

• The commission would develop recommendations to address the program’s funding shortfall.

• The Greenspan Commission helped lay the groundwork for Social Security reform in 1983, but one expert says bipartisan political support is key.

Facing a Social Security shortfall that could cut benefits in a little over six years, lawmakers are reaching for the fix they used to reform the program in the 1980s—a bipartisan commission.

The program’s retirement trust fund is projected to run dry in roughly six years—late 2032, according to the latest Social Security trustees’ report—leaving beneficiaries with just 78% of scheduled benefits.

In June, Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY) reintroduced the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act, which would establish a bipartisan commission tasked with providing recommendations on how to solve Social Security’s funding issues.

The 13-member commission would draw lawmakers from both parties in the House and Senate, along with outside experts. It would have to present its recommendations within a year of its first meeting, and Congress would fast-track any resulting legislation.

Why This Matters To You

Commissions have long been Washington’s answer to problems too politically painful to solve directly. This one tests whether a structured process can manufacture the resolve that has eluded lawmakers as the deadline for a fix draws nearer.

The bill revives a commission created decades ago to confront an even more urgent shortfall. The commission, known as the Greenspan Commission after its head, Alan Greenspan, was established by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

That year, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, which pays benefits to retired workers and their families, was projected to run dry within two years.

Kathleen Romig, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the Greenspan Commission succeeded because Reagan and then-House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-MA) worked across the aisle, with both agreeing to support its recommendations.

“A [commission] alone just isn’t going to solve the problem,” Romig said. “The one thing that must happen…is the engagement of the President and Congressional leaders.”

Although the commission’s recommendations formed the groundwork for the law Reagan signed in 1983, Congress added key provisions during negotiations.

The Greenspan Commission’s recommendations resolved only about two-thirds of the shortfall, so other measures were needed to close the gap.

House negotiators added a provision to gradually raise the full retirement age—when retirees qualify for 100% of their benefits—from 65 to 67. That amendment, along with other measures added by Congress, covered the remaining one-third of the shortfall.

The Greenspan Commission also faced internal conflict: Democrats opposed benefit cuts while Republicans resisted payroll tax increases. Whether a commission could succeed today may hinge on whether leaders in the White House and Congress are involved.

Robert Ball, who served as House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s representative on the Greenspan Commission, drew a blunter lesson. The panel itself deadlocked, he wrote in a 2010 account. The 1983 fix came only when negotiators for Reagan and O’Neill cut a deal around it.

“A commission is no substitute for principled commitment,” Ball said.

Read the original article on Investopedia