Don’t rush to save Social Security, AARP tells Congress: ‘It should be debated openly — not through an accelerated process’

A previous version of this report misstated the percentage of Social Security’s potential benefit cut. It has been corrected.

Congress needs to find ways to prevent Social Security from running out of money within the next decade, but a bipartisan advisory board would be rushing the process, AARP said in a letter to legislators. 

Most Read from MarketWatch

The letter comes in response to a proposal earlier this month by Democratic and Republican senators, dubbed the Promise Act, which would require the Social Security Advisory Board, an independent group, to create a plan to save Social Security. Congress would then vote on its suggestions.

AARP said this plan would rush the process and curtail the proper amount of debate on a matter as important as Social Security.

“We agree with you that Congress needs to act to address Social Security’s financial challenges and to strengthen Social Security for generations to come,” Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer at AARP, wrote in the letter. “But how Congress acts matters. Changes to a program that provides the foundation of retirement security for millions of Americans should be debated openly, transparently, deliberatively and through regular order— not through an accelerated process that limits scrutiny of proposals that could cut Social Security.”

AARP has a webpage dedicated to its advocacy efforts for Social Security reform. “AARP is hearing from older Americans who are concerned about their Social Security. They are asking if Social Security will continue to make the payments they’ve earned, if claims will be processed on time and if they’ll be able to get the customer service they need, when they need it,” the organization said on its website. “We’re urging Congress to protect and save Social Security.”

The program’s two trust funds are expected to run out of money by as early as 2032, this year’s annual Social Security and Medicare trustees’ report said, at which point recipients would see a 22% cut to benefits. Congress has never let Social Security falter — although the program came close in the early 1980s — but it has yet to come forward with proposals to fix this current insolvency issue.

The advisory board currently has four members, though it can have up to seven people. The Promise Act — with “Promise” an acryonym for “Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone” — would require this board to present Congress with a detailed plan on keeping the program solvent for at least 50 years by Sept. 14.

This timeline would limit public input, restrict members from amending plans and “set up fast-tracked floor debates in the lame-duck session of Congress, just after the November elections, when departing members are completely unaccountable to voters,” LeaMond said in the letter.

The last major Social Security reform, which was in 1983, went through regular procedure that included “extensive debate and amendments,” she noted.

A “fast-track” approach could put forth solutions that don’t align with what Americans actually want, critics have argued.

“One thing has become increasingly clear in recent years: While Washington often treats Social Security as politically divisive, the American people are remarkably united in both their support for the program and how they want policymakers to address its finances to keep it strong for future generations,” said Rebecca Vallas, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance, a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies social insurance programs. “Broad-based majorities across party lines, generations, income and education strongly prefer revenue solutions to benefit cuts.”

Read: Here’s what Americans are willing to sacrifice to save Social Security

For example, a NASI report found the “preferred package” of Social Security fixes included eliminating the payroll-tax cap for high-income workers, aligning the cost-of-living adjustment with an inflation rate tied to older workers’ habits, raising the payroll-tax rate for employees and employers, and reducing benefits for high-income retirees.

The Promise Act is led by Democratic senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Chris Coons of Delaware; Republican senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Alan Armstrong of Oklahoma and John Cornyn of Texas; and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine.

Read: Social Security says it’s handling disability claims better. But it may just be pushing more people away.

Some of the senators’ offices shot back at AARP’s statement.

“The bipartisan Promise Act does not fast-track or short-circuit the normal legislative process to change Social Security. In fact, it would ensure that the future of Social Security receives far more scrutiny, debate and discussion than the vast majority of measures considered in Congress,” a spokesperson for Durbin said. “If regular order is the gold standard, the Promise Act is platinum. It ensures thoughtful debate without the endless set of delays that have stymied bipartisan progress in Congress.”

Read: Opinion: Social Security’s reality check — with a side of wishful thinking

Most Read from MarketWatch