AARP pushes back on Senate plan to speed Social Security overhaul
The senior advocacy group says the PROMISE Act would rush Social Security changes as benefit cuts loom in the 2030s.
By Theo Nakamura · Staff Writer
· 4 min read
AARP is opposing a bipartisan Senate proposal designed to force action on Social Security, warning that the process could move changes through Congress too quickly. For retirees and workers, the fight is about how Washington handles a program that the government says may be unable to pay full scheduled benefits in the next decade.
The bill, called the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone Act, or PROMISE Act, was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators including Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip from Illinois, and Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana. The proposal is meant to break a long-running stalemate over Social Security, according to the senators’ July 14 announcement.
In a July 21 letter to Durbin and Cassidy, AARP Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond said the group objects to the bill’s special process for handling Social Security legislation. AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that advocates on issues affecting older Americans.
“We strongly object to fast-tracking Social Security changes through Congress, as your bill would do,” LeaMond wrote.
Why Congress is under pressure
Social Security is financed through trust funds, which are accounts used to pay benefits when incoming payroll tax revenue is not enough. The latest annual trustees report, released in June, said the trust fund for retirees, their spouses and children, and survivors of deceased workers could be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032. At that point, 78% of scheduled benefits would be payable, according to the trustees.
If that retirement and survivors fund, known as Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, is combined with the disability insurance trust fund, depletion would come in the third quarter of 2034, with 83% of scheduled benefits payable, the trustees report said.
That does not mean Social Security would disappear. It means the program would not have enough money under current law to cover every promised dollar unless Congress changes benefits, taxes, borrowing rules or some combination of policies.
How the PROMISE Act would work
The PROMISE Act would direct the Social Security Advisory Board, an independent bipartisan advisory committee, to send Congress a starting bill meant to keep Social Security’s trust funds funded for at least 50 years, according to the senators’ announcement.
The measure would send that bill to the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee for hearings and possible changes. If the committees did not report it, the bill would be automatically placed on the House and Senate calendars. Lawmakers could offer substitute proposals, and both chambers could vote after 100 hours of consideration.
Passage would require a three-fifths vote in the Senate and a majority vote in the House, according to the proposal.
AARP said that structure could limit transparency and public input. LeaMond wrote that the bill would ask a four-member advisory board to produce a 50-year solvency plan in a little over a month, and said that if the board failed, two members of Congress could force votes on their own plans within weeks.
A spokesperson for Durbin disputed AARP’s criticism in an email, saying the PROMISE Act would not bypass the normal lawmaking process and would give Social Security more review, debate and discussion than most measures considered by Congress.
Other groups back action
The PROMISE Act has support from the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, both Washington-based think tanks. Bipartisan Policy Center Action President Michele Stockwell said the senators were creating a bipartisan process to address congressional inaction.
AARP also sent July 21 letters opposing two other proposals: the Fiscal Commission Act and the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act. The group cited similar concerns about special commissions and procedures outside regular congressional order.
Durbin, whose term ends in January, said on the Senate floor Wednesday that delaying Social Security action would make the choices harder and more expensive. Cassidy’s term also ends in January. Any final Social Security overhaul would still need bipartisan support, including a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate.
This story draws on original reporting from CNBC.
