Earlier this week, the Republican Study Committee, the largest GOP caucus in the House of Representatives, released its proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. It includes longtime conservative wish list items like raising the Social Security retirement age for younger Americans, reducing benefits for younger high-income earners, and converting Medicare into a voucher-style “premium support” program.
When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, Republicans just can’t help themselves. Even after years of attempted cuts have backfired, they continue to attempt to sabotage the popular entitlement programs — and in doing so sabotage themselves. The RSC, which counts Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., among its members alongside nearly 80% of House Republicans, insists these changes are necessary to save the programs. Not only is that false, but the RSC proposal is a massive political error, handing President Joe Biden a jewel of an issue to run on ahead of Election Day.
During Trump’s time in office, every single one of his budgets proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Better still for the president, the RSC’s proposal comes on the heels of former President Donald Trump saying in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last week that “there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” After Biden and his campaign pounced, the Trump team tried to backtrack. But Republicans heard the former president loud and clear: RSC Chair Kevin Hern told reporters Wednesday, “What you’re hearing President Trump say is exactly what we’re saying.”
That’s about par for the course when it comes to Trump. When he first ran for president, the then-long-shot candidate distinguished himself from the GOP field by promising to leave both programs alone. But during Trump’s time in office, every single one of his budgets proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Now that he’s out of office, he wants to pretend that never happened. Instead, he is falsely blaming Democrats and immigrants of “killing” both programs.
Like Trump’s budget proposals, the RSC couches its changes in the language of fiscal responsibility. But the RSC simultaneously calls for permanently extending the Trump tax cuts, which are heavily weighted toward the wealthy and corporations, and proposes additional tax cuts — all totaling more than $5 trillion over 10 years. As MSNBC columnist Paul Waldman points out, if Social Security’s solvency is the concern, it’s much easier to lift the payroll tax cap, which currently lets high earners pay a smaller share of their income. As for Medicare, Biden’s proposal to raise Medicare taxes on people making more than $400,000 would extend that program’s solvency into the 2050s.
When it comes to the politics, it’s almost impossible to find a less favorable issue for Republicans. A Data for Progress poll last year found only 8% of Americans supported raising the retirement age — including just 9% of Republicans. An Associated Press-NORC poll found just 6% favored reduced Social Security benefits. And most polls on past “premium support” Medicare proposals found broad opposition.
Setting up Social Security and Medicare cuts as fault lines could prove uniquely advantageous for Biden. A recent Public Policy Polling survey found Biden and Trump essentially tied in the race for president — 46% to 45%. Then, respondents were presented with the candidates’ views and were asked again whom they preferred. On three major issues — immigration, abortion and the Israel-Hamas war — the candidates’ shares barely budged. But when voters were told Biden would raise taxes on the wealthy while Trump would cut Social Security and Medicare, the president’s lead opened to an astonishing 51% to 39%.
The truth is we don’t have to choose between keeping these programs solvent and maintaining benefits.
The programs’ popularity is no surprise, given their remarkable track record. Before Social Security was created in 1935, for example, the old-age poverty rate was at least 50%, and probably far higher. After its enactment, poverty among the elderly plunged. Last year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “without Social Security, 22.7 million more adults and children would be below the poverty line.”
The truth is we don’t have to choose between keeping these programs solvent and maintaining their current levels of support. In fact, we should be increasing benefits. Despite Social Security’s success, for example, at least 10% of Americans 65 and older live in poverty, according to census data. The Social Security Investment Act, proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., would eliminate the payroll tax cap and assess payroll taxes on investment income. With the additional money from getting the wealthy to pay their fair share, Warren and Sanders’ bill would increase benefits by $2,400 per year, make future cost-of-living adjustments more generous and extend the program’s solvency until 2100.
Republicans’ insistence on floating Social Security and Medicare cuts is all the more bizarre given that the party’s political hopes have frequently run aground on these exact rocks. In 2012, Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as his running mate allowed then-President Barack Obama to tie Romney to Ryan’s proposed cuts to Medicare. And in 2005, a newly re-elected President George W. Bush opted to spend his “political capital” on partially privatizing Social Security. The effort failed miserably and helped Democrats take complete control of Congress in the 2006 midterms.
So, if cutting Social Security and Medicare is neither necessary nor popular, why do Republicans keep suggesting it? The answer lies in what Social Security and Medicare represent: successful universal programs that gives all Americans a shared stake in their success. Americans across race, class and gender all have an interest in coming together to defend these programs.
In other words, the two programs generate solidarity. In their incisive new book on the history of the term, authors and activists Astra Taylor and Leah Hunt-Hendrix contrast “reactionary” solidarity, typified by Trump’s “divide-and-conquer” approach to race and politics, with “transformative” and “democratic” solidarity that brings together a bigger “we” to accomplish bigger goals. Social Security and Medicare, they write, “create a more solidaristic feedback loop, while fragmented or means-tested programs … reach narrowly defined groups and often create confusion and resentment.” The solidarity that led to the creation of Social Security — “movements of militant workers, the unemployed and the elderly” during the Great Depression — also allowed Democrats to implement the first federal minimum wage, overhaul financial regulations and launch massive public works projects.
It’s exactly that power that Republicans fear. These programs aren’t just successful institutions — they are threats to the very heart of the GOP’s prejudice-ridden approach to politics. Biden’s defense of these programs isn’t just politically advantageous — it’s absolutely necessary.
