The PROMISE Act and Social Security
For years, Americans approaching retirement have heard warnings about the financial future of Social Security. The dates have changed, the projections have been updated, and politicians have debated different solutions. But the underlying issue has remained remarkably consistent: unless Congress takes action, Social Security may eventually be unable to pay 100% of scheduled benefits.
Now, a new proposal called the PROMISE Act is attempting to force the issue.
But there is an important distinction retirees and future retirees need to understand: the PROMISE Act itself does not fix Social Security.
It does not establish a new Social Security retirement age. It does not directly raise payroll taxes. It does not immediately cut benefits. And it does not prescribe one specific solution for restoring the program's long-term financial health.
Instead, the PROMISE Act is designed to create a process that could force Congress to confront the Social Security funding problem, develop a proposal, debate it, and ultimately vote on it.
That distinction matters because headlines suggesting that Congress has found a "fix" for Social Security could give retirees the wrong impression. The PROMISE Act may potentially change how Congress approaches the problem, but the difficult decisions about taxes, benefits, retirement ages, and other possible reforms would still have to be made.
For anyone planning for retirement, the debate also raises a more personal question:
Should your retirement plan assume Social Security will remain exactly as it is today?
Understanding what the PROMISE Act actually proposes—and what it does not—is a good place to start.
What Is the PROMISE Act?
The PROMISE Act of 2026 stands for the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone Act.
As discussed in the Dolphin Financial Group podcast, the legislation is intended to create an accelerated process for addressing Social Security's long-term financial shortfall.
Rather than specifying exactly how Social Security should be changed, the legislation would establish a framework intended to move a solvency proposal through Congress.
That makes the PROMISE Act fundamentally different from many Social Security reform ideas you may have heard discussed over the years.
For example, possible Social Security reforms often include ideas such as:
- Increasing the Social Security payroll tax
- Increasing the amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes
- Gradually increasing the full retirement age
- Changing the way future benefits are calculated
- Reducing benefits for certain beneficiaries
- Combining tax increases and benefit adjustments
The PROMISE Act itself does not choose among those options.
Instead, it essentially addresses a different problem: Congress has known about Social Security's financial challenges for years, yet lawmakers have repeatedly failed to agree on a comprehensive solution.
The premise behind the legislation is that changing the process may finally force lawmakers to deal with the policy.
Does the PROMISE Act Cut Social Security Benefits?
No. The PROMISE Act itself does not establish a Social Security benefit cut.
This is one of the most important points for retirees to understand when reading about the proposal.
The legislation also does not, by itself, raise the Social Security retirement age or increase Social Security payroll taxes.
Instead, the PROMISE Act would create a process through which a separate Social Security solvency proposal could be developed and considered.
However, that does not mean future benefit changes are impossible.
The eventual legislation produced through the process could potentially contain changes affecting benefits, taxes, retirement ages, or other parts of Social Security. Those decisions would depend on the proposal ultimately developed and approved by Congress.
This distinction is especially important because the debate surrounding Social Security can quickly become confusing.
There are really two separate questions:
- Should Congress be required to address Social Security's financial shortfall now?
- What specific changes should Congress make to restore long-term solvency?
The PROMISE Act primarily addresses the first question.
The much harder debate over the second question would still remain.
Why Does Social Security Need Congressional Action?
The urgency behind the PROMISE Act comes from the financial condition of the Social Security system.
According to the figures discussed in the podcast, the Social Security trust fund is projected to be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032 if Congress does not act.
That does not mean Social Security would suddenly disappear or that retirees would receive nothing.
Social Security is primarily financed through payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. Those taxes would continue to generate revenue even if trust fund reserves were depleted.
However, the podcast notes that incoming payroll tax revenue would then be sufficient to cover only about 78% of scheduled benefits.
Under the scenario discussed, that could translate into an automatic reduction of approximately 22% across the board for current and future Social Security beneficiaries if lawmakers failed to make changes.
Using the example presented in the discussion, an average recipient could potentially receive roughly $450 less per month.
For a retiree who relies heavily on Social Security, a reduction of that magnitude could have a substantial effect on household finances.
A $450 monthly reduction equals approximately $5,400 per year. Over a lengthy retirement, the cumulative effect could become significant.
That is why the Social Security solvency debate isn't merely a political issue. It is a retirement planning issue.
Why Is Social Security Facing a Funding Shortfall?
Social Security's financial challenges did not develop overnight.
The program is dealing with demographic and financial pressures that have been building for decades.
Among the issues discussed in the podcast are Americans living longer, fewer workers paying into the system relative to the number of beneficiaries collecting benefits, wage-related pressures, and limitations associated with the amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxation.
In simple terms, Social Security depends heavily on current workers supporting current beneficiaries.
When there are many workers contributing for every retiree receiving benefits, the system has more financial flexibility. As that relationship changes, maintaining promised benefit levels becomes increasingly difficult without adjustments elsewhere in the system.
Congress has known about these pressures for years.
The problem is not necessarily identifying possible solutions. Policymakers have discussed many of them.
The problem has been reaching an agreement about which combination of solutions should be used—and who should bear the cost.
Why Hasn't Congress Fixed Social Security Already?
Social Security reform is politically difficult because nearly every potential solution creates winners, losers, or trade-offs.
Consider some of the most commonly discussed approaches.
Increasing payroll taxes could strengthen Social Security's finances, but workers and employers would pay more.
Raising the amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxation could generate additional revenue, but higher earners could face a larger tax burden.
Increasing the full retirement age could reduce the program's long-term obligations, but future retirees might need to wait longer to receive their full benefit.
Reducing scheduled benefits could improve Social Security's finances, but retirees may have less income available to support their lifestyle.
Each option creates political resistance.
That has helped create a situation where lawmakers can agree that Social Security faces a long-term financial challenge while continuing to disagree about what should actually be done about it.
And every year Congress waits, the number of available choices may become more difficult.
Waiting Could Make Social Security Reform More Painful
One of the central arguments made during the podcast is that waiting too long could eventually require lawmakers to use multiple Social Security reforms at the same time.
Years ago, a relatively modest adjustment to one part of the system might have had a larger impact on long-term solvency.
As the projected depletion date gets closer, however, Congress has less time to phase changes in gradually.
That could eventually mean lawmakers consider some combination of:
- Higher Social Security taxes
- A higher full retirement age
- Changes to taxable earnings limits
- Adjustments to future benefits
- Other revenue or benefit reforms
No one currently knows which combination Congress might ultimately choose.
But the closer the system gets to its projected funding shortfall, the more difficult it may become to solve the problem with one relatively small adjustment.
This is the underlying rationale for addressing the issue sooner rather than later.
And that brings us to what makes the PROMISE Act unusual: rather than attempting to dictate the answer, it attempts to force the process of finding one.
How Would the PROMISE Act Work?
The key to understanding the PROMISE Act is recognizing that it is primarily a process bill rather than a policy bill.
Instead of Congress immediately voting on a specific combination of tax increases, benefit changes, or retirement age adjustments, the legislation would establish a structured process for developing a Social Security solvency proposal.
As described in the podcast, the PROMISE Act would direct the Social Security Advisory Board, an independent bipartisan panel, to gather public input and develop a base legislative proposal intended to keep Social Security solvent for the next 50 years.
That proposal would then move through an accelerated congressional process.
The legislation is designed to limit how long the issue can remain stalled. Debate time would be limited, and amendments would still need to satisfy the bill's long-term solvency requirements. Final passage would require 60 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House.
In other words, the goal is not simply to create another commission that studies Social Security and produces a report that Congress can ignore.
The objective is to create a pathway toward an actual vote.
Why Require a 50-Year Social Security Solvency Plan?
Another important component of the proposal is its long-term solvency requirement.
The podcast explains that changes proposed through the PROMISE Act process would need to address Social Security's finances for approximately 50 years.
That provision is designed to prevent lawmakers from simply adopting a temporary measure that pushes the funding problem a few years further into the future.
This matters because temporary fixes can be politically attractive. A relatively small adjustment may allow elected officials to say they addressed the problem while leaving another Congress to confront the same issue later.
The PROMISE Act attempts to require a more durable response.
However, the 50-year requirement is also one of the areas where critics have raised concerns. As discussed in the podcast, some opponents believe Social Security reform should target a longer solvency period, such as 75 years.
That disagreement illustrates an important point: even before Congress begins debating specific benefit or tax changes, lawmakers and advocacy groups can disagree about what qualifies as an adequate long-term solution.
Why Do Supporters Favor the PROMISE Act?
The strongest argument for the PROMISE Act is relatively straightforward:
The normal legislative process has not produced a comprehensive Social Security solution, so perhaps Congress needs a different process.
Supporters argue that lawmakers have known about Social Security's financial challenges for decades. Yet the projected funding shortfall continues to move closer.
Organizations identified in the podcast as supporting the effort include the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and Third Way.
The general argument is that Congress should begin the difficult debate now rather than waiting until Social Security is much closer to its projected trust fund depletion date.
There is historical precedent for concern about waiting too long. Major Social Security reforms enacted in the 1980s came when the program was facing an immediate financial problem. Waiting until the last possible moment can put lawmakers under enormous pressure and leave less time to phase changes in gradually.
From a retirement planning perspective, earlier action could potentially provide another benefit: clarity.
If workers know years in advance that the retirement age, payroll tax structure, or benefit formula will gradually change, they may have more time to incorporate those changes into their retirement strategies.
Uncertainty itself can make retirement planning more difficult.
Why Do Critics Oppose the PROMISE Act?
Not everyone agrees that an accelerated process is the right way to reform Social Security.
According to the discussion in the podcast, critics have raised concerns about the compressed timeline, limitations on the normal debate and amendment process, and the amount of drafting responsibility given to the Social Security Advisory Board.
The fact that members of the advisory board are appointed rather than elected has also generated concern.
Congress would still ultimately have to approve legislation, but critics question whether an accelerated process could give lawmakers and the public enough opportunity to fully evaluate changes to a program that affects tens of millions of Americans.
The podcast specifically discusses opposition from AARP and Senator Bernie Sanders.
One concern discussed is that an accelerated process could make it easier for lawmakers to adopt benefit reductions or other major changes without the level of transparency and debate normally associated with Social Security legislation.
There are also concerns about the timing of congressional consideration and the possibility that major decisions could occur during a lame-duck period after an election, when some lawmakers voting on the proposal may not be returning for the next term.
Supporters and opponents therefore agree on something important: Social Security's financial condition needs attention.
Where they disagree is over how Congress should reach a solution and what safeguards should surround that process.
Could the PROMISE Act Lead to Social Security Benefit Cuts?
Potentially—but that is very different from saying the PROMISE Act itself cuts benefits.
The PROMISE Act would create the process through which a future solvency package could be developed. Until the details of such a package are known, no one can say with certainty which Social Security changes would ultimately be included.
A comprehensive solution could potentially involve revenue increases, benefit adjustments, retirement age changes, or a combination of several approaches.
This is one reason the Social Security debate is likely to become increasingly important to people who are approaching retirement.
The eventual solution may not affect every generation or income level in exactly the same way. Congress could choose to phase certain changes in over time, protect particular groups, or apply different rules based on age or other factors.
Until actual reform legislation is developed and enacted, however, retirees should be cautious about making major financial decisions based on speculation about what Congress might do.
What Does the PROMISE Act Mean for Your Retirement?
The most important takeaway from the PROMISE Act debate may have less to do with Washington and more to do with your own retirement plan.
You cannot control what Congress ultimately decides.
You can, however, evaluate how dependent your retirement plan is on Social Security and what would happen if future benefits were different from today's scheduled benefits.
This is especially important for households approaching retirement because Social Security claiming decisions are often connected to many other financial decisions.
Your Social Security strategy can affect:
- How much guaranteed monthly income you expect in retirement
- When you begin withdrawals from retirement accounts
- How much income your investment portfolio may need to generate
- Your tax strategy during retirement
- Your decision about when to stop working
- Your surviving spouse's potential income
- How much cash reserve you may want available
Rather than trying to predict exactly what Congress will do, retirement planning can incorporate multiple scenarios.
Stress-Test Your Retirement Plan for Social Security Changes
One practical approach is to ask a simple question:
What happens to my retirement plan if my Social Security income is lower than expected?
This does not mean you should automatically assume a 22% reduction will occur.
Congress may act before that happens.
But modeling a lower-benefit scenario can help reveal how resilient your retirement plan may be.
For example, a retirement analysis could compare several possibilities:
- Social Security benefits are paid as currently scheduled
- Future Social Security benefits are moderately reduced
- Taxes associated with Social Security or earned income increase
- The rules change for younger workers but existing retirees are largely protected
The objective is not to predict legislation.
The objective is to determine whether your retirement strategy can withstand uncertainty.
Someone whose retirement income comes from several different sources may have more flexibility than someone who expects Social Security to provide most of their monthly income.
Understanding that distinction before retirement can give you more time to adjust.
Should You Change When You Claim Social Security Because of the PROMISE Act?
The PROMISE Act alone should not determine when you claim Social Security.
Social Security claiming decisions should generally be evaluated in the context of your broader retirement situation rather than based on one proposed piece of legislation.
Factors that can influence a claiming strategy include your age, work plans, other retirement income, household needs, spouse's benefits, expected longevity, tax situation, and overall financial plan.
The possibility of future Social Security reform can be incorporated into the analysis, but it is only one variable.
This is particularly important because reacting to political headlines can lead retirees to make permanent decisions based on legislation that may change substantially—or may never become law.
Don't Wait for Congress to Create Your Retirement Plan
The closing message of the podcast is particularly relevant for anyone approaching retirement: Congress will eventually make its decisions, but you still need to make yours.
Social Security is important, but it is only one component of a comprehensive retirement strategy.
A retirement plan can evaluate your expected Social Security benefits alongside pensions, retirement accounts, investments, savings, insurance strategies, taxes, and anticipated spending.
It can also test different assumptions.
What happens if Social Security changes?
What happens if inflation is higher than expected?
What happens if retirement lasts longer than anticipated?
What happens if investment returns are different from your original assumptions?
The more dependent a retirement strategy is on one assumption working perfectly, the more vulnerable that strategy may be when circumstances change.
The PROMISE Act debate is another reminder that retirement planning should account for uncertainty rather than ignore it.
Frequently Asked Questions About the PROMISE Act and Social Security
What is the PROMISE Act?
The PROMISE Act stands for the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone Act. As discussed in the Dolphin Financial Group podcast, it is designed to create an accelerated process for developing and considering legislation intended to address Social Security's long-term financial shortfall.
Does the PROMISE Act cut Social Security benefits?
No. The PROMISE Act itself does not establish a Social Security benefit cut. It creates a process through which a separate solvency proposal could be developed. That future proposal could potentially include benefit changes, tax changes, retirement age adjustments, or other reforms.
Does the PROMISE Act raise the Social Security retirement age?
No. The PROMISE Act itself does not raise the full retirement age. A future Social Security reform package could potentially consider retirement age changes, but that would be a separate policy decision.
Does the PROMISE Act increase Social Security taxes?
No. The legislation itself does not establish a Social Security payroll tax increase. However, increasing revenue is one of several approaches that could potentially be considered in a future solvency proposal.
Is Social Security going away?
The funding problem discussed in the podcast does not mean Social Security simply disappears when trust fund reserves are depleted. Payroll taxes would continue to generate revenue. The concern is that, without congressional action, available revenue may not be sufficient to pay 100% of scheduled benefits.
When could Social Security face benefit reductions?
The podcast cites projections indicating that the Social Security trust fund could be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032, at which point incoming payroll tax revenue could cover approximately 78% of scheduled benefits. Projections can change, and Congress could act before the projected depletion date.
Could Social Security benefits really be cut by 22%?
The podcast discusses an approximately 22% across-the-board reduction as the potential consequence if trust fund reserves were depleted and incoming revenue covered only about 78% of scheduled benefits. This is a projected scenario if lawmakers fail to address the funding shortfall, not a benefit cut enacted by the PROMISE Act.
Why doesn't Congress simply fix Social Security now?
There are many potential ways to improve Social Security's finances, but most involve difficult trade-offs. Raising taxes, increasing the retirement age, changing taxable earnings limits, or adjusting benefits can affect different groups in different ways. Reaching political agreement on the appropriate combination has been difficult.
Should retirees worry about the PROMISE Act?
Retirees should stay informed, but proposed legislation should be distinguished from enacted law. The PROMISE Act debate may be a useful reminder to evaluate how Social Security fits into a broader retirement income plan and how that plan would respond to potential future changes.
Should I claim Social Security early because benefits might be cut?
The possibility of future Social Security reform is not, by itself, a reason to automatically claim benefits early. Claiming Social Security is an individual retirement planning decision that should consider your income needs, work plans, other assets, household circumstances, potential survivor benefits, taxes, longevity assumptions, and broader financial strategy.
How can I prepare for possible Social Security changes?
One approach is to model multiple retirement scenarios rather than assuming Social Security will remain completely unchanged. Comparing your retirement plan under current scheduled benefits and under a reduced-benefit scenario can help you understand how dependent your financial future is on Social Security.
The Bottom Line: Plan for Your Retirement While Congress Debates Social Security
The PROMISE Act is noteworthy not because it provides a specific Social Security solution, but because it attempts to force Congress to begin the process of creating one.
Whether that approach ultimately becomes law—and what Social Security reforms might eventually emerge from Congress—remains uncertain.
What is much clearer is that the Social Security funding challenge is becoming increasingly relevant for today's retirees and workers approaching retirement.
Waiting for Washington to provide certainty may not be the best retirement strategy.
Instead, consider understanding your Social Security options, determining how much of your retirement income is expected to come from the program, and testing your financial plan against different potential outcomes.
At Dolphin Financial Group, retirement planning can include evaluating different Social Security claiming strategies and modeling how potential changes to Social Security may affect your broader retirement income plan.
If you are approaching retirement and want to better understand how Social Security fits into your financial future, consider reviewing your strategy before you make a permanent claiming decision.
```
Daniel Wendol
Item #1
00:00:05 – 00:01:11
The fix is in. Social Security is soon to be fixed, that bane of our existence. This show I’ve been doing for a decade now. And Social Security always creeps up, and it’s always going to fail in the near future, and that is coming closer and closer. But have no fear, a bill has been introduced to Congress that claims it’s going to solve our problems with Social Security. Just in case you’re new to the situation, we’re going to recap real quick. If Social Security is not fixed, there’s
00:00:38 – 00:01:56
going to be a 22% automatic cut across the board. Comes to about $450 per month less for Social Security recipients, on average. But today we’re going to explore the fix. It’s called the Promise Act. I want to talk about what is the Promise Act, what it does, why it exists, who supports it, who opposes it, and what it means for your retirement. So let me begin by bringing in my sidekick Tony to help me with this. >> I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the
00:01:18 – 00:02:18
English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” >> Tony, welcome to the show. >> favorite Ronald Reagan quote. That is a great one. I love that. I don’t know who wrote it, if he did it himself or a speech writer, but that’s a good line. Yeah. >> So, is he right again? Is Ronald Reagan right? Has the savior to Social Security [laughter] finally arrived, Tony? Are you excited about this? >> Dan, I’ll tell you what. I hear the
00:01:47 – 00:02:41
phrase “the fix is in” a lot, right? And I think And that just you introducing the show today, just when I hear about the Promise Act, I’m like, “The fix is in. Uh is it a good thing or a bad? Sometimes if you say the fix is in, it’s a bad thing. So, we’ll >> That was intentional, Tony. That was totally intentional. >> Sure. [laughter] Sure. >> It was. Uh because yeah, we’re going to But let let’s real quick, Tony. We have a problem. Start with the hard numbers.
00:02:15 – 00:03:10
>> Of course. Of course. >> Social Security 2026 numbers came out, the Social Security Trustees report. And they said it’s going to be depleted. Social Security is going to be depleted. The trust fund will be depleted by the fourth quarter of 2032. So, it’s not that far away. >> No. >> It’s not that far away. And then at that point, the payroll taxes are going to be only covering about 78% of the benefits. >> Yeah. >> So, right now under the current law,
00:02:43 – 00:03:47
that triggers an automatic across-the-board cut of roughly 22% for every current and future beneficiary. Across-the-board cuts. So, this isn’t a surprise. We’ve been talking about this for a long time. >> A long time. >> People living longer, fewer workers paying in, more collecting. >> Yeah. >> You know, wages are lower, the taxable maximum isn’t enough. And there’s a lot of solutions, but I don’t want to talk about those today, Tony. I want to talk about the promise
00:03:15 – 00:04:09
act. >> Okay. >> Because Congress has known about this for decades. >> But isn’t the promise act a solution? Doesn’t it offer solutions? So, we are going to talk about solutions. >> Yes, we are. Are we though? >> Yeah. That’s yeah. >> So, my I think you and I can agree. I mean, there’s a lot of solutions, and you and I might disagree with those solutions. And the listeners, you might have your own opinions as to what the solution is. But one thing you and I can
00:03:41 – 00:04:55
agree on, Tony, is that this problem has been kicked The can has been kicked on this problem down the road for as long as we know. >> Mhm. >> Right? So, enter the Promise Act. Okay. So, the Promise Act of 2026. We’re talking now, we’re in August of 2026. This is formally known as the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone Act. Promise. You know you like those acronyms. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, the government’s great. They have
00:04:18 – 00:05:29
a whole team of people. They spend billions of dollars to come up with the acronyms. I love it. >> Oh, you know, but it’s protecting retirement opportunities and maintaining income security, right? I mean, that’s that’s a promise. Um Senate Bill 4979 if you want to look it up. >> All right. >> Okay. So, the idea of this bill is it’s not a solution. It’s not saying we’re going to raise the taxable maximum on Social Security. We’re going to raise the Social Security retirement age, or we’re
00:04:54 – 00:05:58
going to cut benefits, or we’re going to add It’s none of that. None of that is in this bill. >> is it? If it doesn’t have any of the usual solutions we talk about that they could enact to fix Social Security, what does it do? >> It is a process bill, >> [clears throat] >> not a policy bill. Let me first by telling you who sponsored it. You’ve seen these names: Durbin, Cassidy, Cain, Tillis, King, Cornyn, Coons, Armstrong. Republicans and Democrats. So, they’re
00:05:25 – 00:06:37
saying this is a bipartisan bill. >> Didn’t even know that was possible. Yeah. Didn’t know a bipartisan bill was even possible. >> So, it’s not a fix, per se. It doesn’t raise the taxes or cut benefits. It doesn’t change the retirement age. It simply creates a structured way for to force Congress to confront the shortfall. So, what it does, all right? [laughter] The bill directs the Social Security >> It doesn’t actually do anything. It just makes it makes It’s a law that would
00:06:02 – 00:07:13
make Congress have to deal with it down the road. >> Yes. Yes. And No, deal with it now. It makes it deal with it now. So, the bill directs the Social Security Advisory Board, which is an independent bipartisan panel. >> Okay. >> These are non-elected people. >> Yeah. >> They’re appointed. They’re on this panel. And it directs them to gather public input, draft the base bill that would keep the Social Security solvent for the next 50 years. >> Okay. >> So, it forces this group to come up with
00:06:38 – 00:07:52
an actual draft bill to solve the Social Security crisis. >> But shouldn’t that be happening anyway? I thought >> it should, but it’s not. >> we need a bill to say we need to come up with a plan? >> All right, Tony. I I think >> To answer that, I want to share a video that ex- explains my take on what you just said, which is shouldn’t we be doing this anyway? >> Yeah. >> I want to show you something. Um this is I think the best analogy for the Social Security crisis in this
00:07:15 – 00:08:23
country. >> Yeah. >> Just so happens it was made I think 40-something years ago. Maybe 50 years ago. Monty Python and the Holy Grail. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. I want to share a video with everybody because I think this is this is the the uh analogy. And I want to start by saying what you’re going to see is you’re going to see two guards at a castle. That’s the public. And then you’re going to see social security crisis in the distance. I want to see what happens.
00:07:56 – 00:09:00
This is us, the the general public waiting and waiting and looking. Oh, and there’s social security crisis. And we’re waiting. There’s a social security crisis. >> [laughter] [laughter] >> Hey. I like the other guy. Hey. >> That’s great. >> [laughter] >> All of a sudden it’s there. It’s coming. It’s coming. It’s coming. It’s just like it’s still far in the distance. That’s what we think. It looks like it’s still We got to
00:08:58 – 00:09:59
Ow. No, that’s more the guards of the government. >> Yes. Yes. But it’s us. But we’re the The government is us, right? We’re the people, right? >> Republic, yeah, I guess so. >> So, [laughter] the problem is that the status quo is, just like you said, shouldn’t we be fixing this? Shouldn’t we be meeting and talking about this? And yes, of course we should. >> Yeah. >> But we haven’t been. So, what this bill does, the promise act, it says it moves
00:09:28 – 00:10:27
on a fixed accelerated schedule through Congress. There is a limit limited floor debate time. So, they’re condensing this. And amendments still have to be to meet that 50-year standard. So, it can’t just be like, let’s kick the can and we’ll save Social Security for another 5 years. It’s got to go 50 years out. And the final passage requires 60 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House. So, it hasn’t passed yet? No, this hasn’t passed yet. But, what the supporters of this bill are saying, and
00:09:58 – 00:10:46
I feel like I’m on the supporting side now, just because I don’t want to sit there and Well, sure. watch another Monty Python situation happen. >> It’s so dumb that they have to do it, but yeah, obviously, there’s nothing wrong with a bill that says we have to do it. But, I can’t believe instead of just doing it, they’re making a bill that says they have to do it. >> Right. [laughter] But, this is this is our world. >> You can’t make that up. I mean, this is
00:10:22 – 00:11:22
like a onion headline or a Babylon Bee headline. It’s crazy. >> Correct. Right. It forces Congress to finally take a vote. And my take is it’s better now than waiting until the last minute like we did last time in the ’80s. We waited until it was just about to default, and then we fixed it. So, we have what, 6 years to go before there’s a true crisis? Why not deal with it now? So, that’s what the supporters saying. But, not everyone likes it, Tony. Not everyone likes it.
00:10:52 – 00:11:43
>> Yeah. Not everybody wants to fix Social Security. Who doesn’t want to fix Social Security? >> I’ll tell you who who likes it. You have the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget. You happen We got to get the You You have a connection there. We can get her on. >> I do. >> And Third Way have endorsed the endorsed the project. So, the the the Their case is simple. Con- Congress hasn’t done anything under normal rules, so why not force a
00:11:17 – 00:12:48
debate and an actual vote now until rather than wait, right? So, rather than scrambling later, let’s force it now. So, that’s what the the supporters say. But, critics say it’s too rushed. Critics say um it this is not the way we do business. This this shouldn’t work this way. This is too compressed. The timeline is too tight. And there’s too much drafting power handed to this unelected board. Right? So this group that’s appointed, no one votes for these people on the Social Security Advisory Board.
00:12:03 – 00:13:07
>> Yeah, but the Congress would still have to approve the bill to change to enact their suggestions. >> Right. But it’s rushed. And the rules limit the normal debate process and the amendment process. And they’re especially concerned the the critics of this are concerned about this lame duck thing. So what that means is post-election there’s going to be people that are there that are not going to be there in the next term. They lost, right? So if we do this now and they get elected and
00:12:35 – 00:13:28
voted out, there’s going to be this time frame where these people are voting and making decisions, but they’re out of office in a month or two. Uh or at the end of their term. And so >> And I like that because they might actually vote the right way. They might actually do what’s right. >> See, this is where you and I agree. Like they’ll they got nothing to lose. But at the same time they have nothing to lose, they could throw everyone under the bus. But do you really think people are going
00:13:01 – 00:13:54
to throw people under the bus because they’re no longer accountable, cuz they’re going to lose they’re already lost? So I I don’t know. So who’s who’s >> Doesn’t everybody want to fix Social Security? I I I don’t get it. I mean uh Or do you want a 20% decrease in benefits across the board? No No politician should be for that and that it’s a death that’s a death knell. So I don’t I don’t know how there could be a critic to saying we need This bill just
00:13:28 – 00:14:27
says we need to fix it. We’re going to appoint a committee to to come up with a suggestion, and then we’ll vote on that suggestion. That’s all it’s saying. There’s no possible critique to that. I I mean >> Well, there is. AARP is against it. I’ve been seeing AARP’s commercials on TV. They’re talking They have people talking about Social Security. The the the CEO of AARP has come on and said we’re going to fix this. We’re going to fight. Which is great. Right? Um they oppose this bill.
00:13:57 – 00:14:49
Bernie Sanders opposes the bill. And he wants Democrats to oppose it. He He’s saying that >> He’s usually a pretty sharp guy when it comes to benefits for people. >> Well, he’s saying that this process would make changes to particularly benefit cuts. He doesn’t want to see any benefit cuts. He’s saying it’ll make a lot easier to cut benefits on Social Security with less transparency cuz this this board is going to be working outside of the normal system. >> Mhm.
00:14:23 – 00:15:31
>> The advisory board he also says is understaffed currently and ideologically divided. >> Oh. >> And he also said that the 50-year solvency target is shorter. It should be 75 years. Um that Social Security needs. So >> Mhm. >> So I feel that forcing the vote this way is a good thing. It passes us passes the gridlock. But they’re saying the short short thing the short timeline um short circuits normal democratic process. [cough] >> Yeah, it worries me that the AARP is
00:14:57 – 00:15:54
against it. >> Right. >> to have to read up on why they are against it. >> Because they’re saying it’s it’s not They’re saying there’s the board’s not transparent. There’s There’s not You know what I What I truly feel is the main reason why people don’t like it? And they don’t like this because it forces a vote, which everyone can agree is a good thing, right? To get this process going. But not with the people that are in power. They want their people
00:15:26 – 00:16:33
to be making the decision to force the vote. They want their people, right? So, if the makeup of the electorate comes and changes who’s in charge and new people are appointed to the board. >> worried about this might encourage and solutions they don’t like. You know, they’re looking ahead to what solutions are going to be suggested and they’re going to think that it’s going to cut. Yeah, I can see Bernie would would not want to Yeah, I get it. I get >> He wants to wait until more of his
00:16:00 – 00:16:52
people are in charge >> Okay. >> so that they can kind of force the agenda. >> Yeah. >> But then what happens is okay, let’s say that happens. Then the Republicans are going to say no. Let’s wait until we get our people back in >> Sure. >> and then we’ll Bob a blah blah blah. It’s it’s it’s very similar to >> are starting to play a part in it. Yeah. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> That’s true that. >> It it it’s it’s very similar to the Supreme
00:16:26 – 00:17:16
Court Justice Ginsburg died. Who’s going to appoint >> her, right? >> Yeah. >> Well, we should follow the rules. It’s appointed by the current president. Well, we should wait because you know, that president’s going to be up for election soon. Of course, it’s going to be based on who you want to make the decision. >> Right. >> So, rather than make a decision, they kick the can >> Yeah. >> we always have someone saying let’s kick the can.
00:16:50 – 00:17:33
>> Always. No matter what’s proposed somebody’s saying let’s kick the can >> Not yet. Wait till I just wait till I got just wait you know. It’s like betting on horses. Oh, the next race. I got the winner. Just wait, right? There’s always waiting for the next horse to come. >> The nine scariest words in the English language. [laughter] >> Right. >> I’m from the government and I’m here to help. >> And they’re there to help the way they
00:17:12 – 00:17:58
want to help, not the way they’re opposites want to help and they want in So, it’s I think that it’s great. It just forces a decision. It doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t There’s no like this is the way it’s going to be. This is the cuts going to make. These are the changes. No, it just forces a decision and that’s what I like. >> Yeah. >> That’s what I like. >> Mhm. Interesting. >> Yeah. >> But will this bill even pass? That’s the
00:17:36 – 00:18:26
question. >> That’s the question. I would hope it I hope it does because then it’s going to force the discussion and make you know, otherwise it’s just going to be same old nonsense. >> Yeah. >> Right? >> I do I do hope this bill pass, but I also hope that they make good and fair choices on how to fix it. But there are I mean I you and I talk about the fixes all the time and I think all our listeners and viewers probably know them if they’ve heard any of our
00:18:00 – 00:18:53
past shows on this topic. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And and we most recent popular show is taking social security at 62. Watch that if you haven’t seen it. >> Yeah. >> Why you should take it at 62. But I what happens now Tony is we’ve kicked the can so far >> Yeah. >> that we can’t just use one solution. It’s got to be all of them. >> Yeah, we waited too long. We could have just raised the minimum retirement age at one point. >> Right.
00:18:27 – 00:19:12
>> But now we’re beyond that. Now they’re going to have to do something else. They’ll probably have to raise the the you know, social security >> Raise taxes. >> Cut benefits. It’s going to be all the above. >> Yeah. >> Because we’re waiting. So this push to wait more >> earnings limit. Exactly. >> Whatever it is. >> This all those pieces used to be we could do one and we’re good. Now you can’t just do one. You have to do them
00:18:49 – 00:19:43
all. So by forcing >> You got to do the combo platter. You got it cuz and everyone’s going to be miserable about it. Everyone. >> there’s there’s going to be real there’s going to be weeping and screaming and gnashing of teeth on the once they do make a decision because somebody will say I don’t like that aspect. >> Of course. This and and >> the same way. If they do a certain way I’m I’ll be like, nope, they shouldn’t have done that. That’s not fair. Nope.
00:19:15 – 00:20:15
>> Right. And I’m on the I I’ve come to terms with the fact that there’s going to be cuts and there’s going to be trade-offs and it’s going to be good and bad. >> I think they should do a little of all of the things we talked about. I think they should raise the full raise the full retirement age, increase the earnings limit, and increase a little bit the Social Security tax that’s taken out of wages. They’ve already They did that before. Uh they’ve raised the full retirement age. I mean,
00:19:46 – 00:20:49
uh Reagan raised the full retirement age and the the amount of taxes, right? >> Right. >> Uh so, you got to I mean, somebody uh I think they should do a little across the board and spread out the pain to fix Social Security and minimize but minimize the pain for any one group. >> Right. But that the the ability to minimize the pain for any one group is going to get harder and harder to do the longer you wait. So, let’s just rip off the goddamn band-aid. >> I mean, we’re within what? 5 years?
00:20:18 – 00:21:11
Come [laughter] on, man. >> They’re slowly peeling off the band-aid. Right? Just rip it off. >> Yeah, but the best [laughter] analogy is that clip. That That is the clip you played from Monty Python. Uh [laughter] we’re waiting we’re waiting. It’s just like, that can’t be that’s that’s so far off. We’re not going to think about that. All of a sudden, boom, he’s there. >> [laughter] >> That is one of the funniest scenes ever. I love that. And it’s so true that that
00:20:44 – 00:21:39
guy coming is Social Security and he’s just going to We’re going to wait [laughter] so long, he’ll just one of us is going to drop, Dan. That’s the >> Right. Hey. >> And then the other one’s just going to go, hey. >> [laughter] >> So, bottom line, I think that the you got to watch the Finance Committee, the advisory board process, see what happens. >> Sure. >> Um I would get out and vote and say push your push your congressperson. Say go come on get this. Get let’s go. Let’s
00:21:11 – 00:22:00
force a vote. And then then we fight. Then we fight, but let’s let’s start ring the bell, right? Let’s ring the bell and let’s get this going. >> Start the fight so we can eventually come up with a solution. It The longer they wait to start the solution process, the worse it’s going to get. >> Right. And >> Cuz it’s going to be a process. I mean, they’re going to come up with a solution for 50 years and then it’s going to be debated hotly and heavily and it’s going
00:21:36 – 00:22:32
to take time. >> Let’s have the debate. Let’s force the debate. And so um but that means what you should do listener is you should still focus on yourself and create your own Social Security retirement plan. Figure it out. If you need help, I’ll put the QR code above. Just contact me and I’ll create the Social Security maximization report and we can play it out. What if there’s a cut? What if there isn’t a cut? Um it shouldn’t you shouldn’t be sitting here waiting
00:22:04 – 00:23:00
by the castle for Social Security to come and smack you on the head. Congress is going to do what it’s going to do. You can force the vote by pushing for the for the um Promise Act. But in the meantime, create your own plan. Don’t wait for the government because they’re not coming to help, right? Just solve your own problems. Be proactive. That’s the That’s the message, Donny. >> Yeah. >> So, thanks for another good show. Um maybe maybe in a couple of months we’ll have uh
00:22:32 – 00:22:54
the Promise Act will pass and and we will be talking real deal. We’ll be real deal. Right? >> right? >> Who knows. >> Yeah. >> All right, we’ll catch everyone next week.