After turning the page on his self-indulgent USA250 bonanza, marred by extreme heat and disappointing attendance, President Trump has once again set his sights on Americans’ earned retirement benefits. On Monday, he announced that his administration is “working on a plan” to create accounts for adults loosely inspired by Australia’s retirement savings system – and similar to the Trump accounts for children. 

Our president and CEO Max Richtman told MarketWatch today that Trump should be working on strengthening Social Security instead of “toying around” with federally-seeded private accounts.

“We would advise President Trump to focus on Social Security – a program that has worked splendidly for more than 90 years to provide Americans with basic retirement security” – Max Richtman, President and CEO, NCPSSM 

Far from fortifying Social Security for the future, these private Trump accounts are a ‘back door way’ of privatizing Social Security. First, Treasury Secretary Bessent admitted as much; then, Senator Ted Cruz affirmed the “dirty little secret” of how these accounts will lead to privatization. 

The push for Trump accounts is not coming from seniors’ advocates – or even from seniors themselves. Rather, it seems to be the brainchild of Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.  Fox Business News reports that these two cabinet members are fleshing out the private retirement plan proposal.

Uncoincidentally, Bessent and Lutnick are entangled with Wall Street. For them, a new “retirement account” system is a chance to expand the pool of money flowing into private investment products — and shift more retirement risk from the government to individuals. 

This might make billionaires and Republican donors in the financial sector happy, but for the retirees who rely on Social Security for all or most of their income, the risk is simply too great to bear. In a privatized system, one bad year in the markets could lead to a 30% benefit decrease. 

The Trump children’s accounts snuck through in the Big, Ugly Bill, whose main purpose was to slash social services while showering the wealthy with new tax breaks. Under the pilot program from the 2025 megabill, the federal government seeds each children’s account with $1,000.  That money is then invested in a Wall Street fund, to which parents can also contribute. It’s a handy way to funnel taxpayer dollars to the financial markets, when private-sector savings plans for children (and adults, for that matter) already exist.  Much like Trump Rx, the president has co-opted an extant private sector function and branded it as his own.

Now, Trump is recycling that branding for adults by piggy-backing off of Australia’s model – apparently without understanding the Australian model in the least. The key difference is that Australia’s plan is backed by mandated employer contributions rather than federal seed money. Australia’s retirement system, called superannuation, is built on a few simple principles:

*Employers must contribute 12% of an employee’s pay into a retirement account that the worker owns.

*Contributions go into a personal, market-invested account tied to the worker, not into a government pool.

*The system is designed to supplement Australia’s public pension, not replace it.

American employers (including many GOP donors) probably would not be thrilled to pay 12% of workers’ earnings into a new, Australian-style retirement system. U.S. employers already contribute 6.2% of wages to Social Security, matching their employees’ contributions. As Max Richtman points out, “Australia’s retirement system may be fine for Australians, but we already have a proven federal retirement program that deserves the President’s attention.”  So here’s an idea: why don’t we stick with Social Security, which, with some common-sense improvements, can remain the sturdy financial lifeline that it has been for more than 90 years – instead of banking on yet another Trump branding scheme?

***************************************’

Watch our health policy expert Anne Montgomery’s takedown of Trump Rx HERE.

Read an article featuring our President & CEO’s thoughts HERE 

Listen to our “You Earned This!” Podcast HERE

Senators Bernie Moreno (R-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Social Security is back in the headlines this summer, driven by both hopeful developments and urgent warnings.  In the wake of the Trustees report in June, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH), announced a bipartisan proposal to adjust the Social Security payroll wage cap and stabilize the program’s revenue ahead of looming insolvency in the early 2030s.

Moreno’s participation in a plan to increase Social Security revenue is particularly notable –  and is the first of its kind from a Republican on Capitol Hill in recent memory. This is an encouraging signal that protecting Social Security benefits can bring people together across party lines. (Bipartisan majorities of Americans favor increasing revenue flowing into the system instead of reducing benefits, even if it means paying more in Social Security payroll taxes.)  It also underscores something advocates have been saying for years: the best way to preserve Social Security is not by cutting it, but by demanding that the wealthiest Americans contribute their fair share.

“We have long supported adjusting the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy contribute their fair share to Social Security. ‘Scrapping the cap’ is a far more equitable way to restore the program to long-term solvency than cutting benefits (by raising the retirement age, means testing, shrinking cost-of-living adjustments, or any other way).” – Max Richtman, President and CEO, NCPSSM 

The timing of this bipartisan push is no accident. Social Security has been back in the spotlight since the Social Security Trustees released their annual report earlier last month, which projects that the depletion date of the program’s trust fund could come as early as 2032, unless Congress takes action.

That’s why it’s notable that a few conservatives have begun to acknowledge the basic fairness of scrapping the cap. Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the (right-leaning) Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) called the Senators’ proposal a “perfectly reasonable” idea. Among congressional Republicans, however, Senator Moreno remains an outlier. Look no further than Speaker Mike Johnson, who declared in a recent radio show appearance that “entitlement programs… like Social Security” are “the problem” and need to be “adjusted.” He said that Republicans have a plan to “fix” Social Security next year. We can only imagine that these unspecified ‘fixes’ include GOP favorites like raising the retirement age, means testing benefits, or lowering the COLA formula — all of which are benefit cuts. 

That is exactly why we launched a new voter education campaign titled, Social Security on the Ballot.  “Social Security is literally on the political calendar now, because the senators elected this cycle likely still will be in office when the trust fund deadline arrives,” said Political Director Luke Warren in our most recent episode of Capital Quick Takes. He also made the point that this campaign is about raising ‘salience’ — moving Social Security from the background into the center of public dialogue, where it belongs. “Voters should know which candidates are prepared to protect earned benefits and which ones are open to cutting them” added Warren. 

The point is simple: this election will determine whether Congress protects beneficiaries or cuts benefits. Seniors, families, workers, and future Social Security recipients all deserve to know where candidates stand before they vote. As our President and CEO says, “Claiming you support Social Security is not enough. Every politician says that. The question is: will you vote to expand and strengthen the program, or cut and privatize it?”

***************************************

Read Senator Warren and Moreno’s New York Times Op-Ed HERE

Watch the latest episode of Capital Quick Takes with political director Luke Warren HERE

Read our analysis of the 2026 Social Security Trustees report HERE

Istock photo

Every election year seems to be “the most important one in our lifetimes” – or the “most consequential election ever.” But… this election year really IS extremely pivotal for Social Security. That’s because the next Congress will no doubt begin grappling with the challenge of strengthening Social Security’s finances before the projected depletion of the trust fund in the early 2030’s.

In fact, U.S. Senators elected this year likely still will be in office through the end of 2032, when the trust fund will be on the precipice of insolvency… absent congressional action. Unless Congress wants beneficiaries to suffer an automatic 17-22% cut in benefits – it will have to act soon. Few who remember the reforms of 1983 want to see lawmakers once again wait until the very last minute, when options are more limited and costs steeper.

With that in mind, we have launched a new voter education campaign called “Social Security on the Ballot.” Its message is simple but urgent: when Americans go to the polls this November, they’ll be choosing candidates who will shape the future of Social Security.

As our President and CEO Max Richtman puts it:

“The stakes for current and future seniors couldn’t be higher. Depending on the composition of the next Congress, Social Security could be strengthened (and expanded) – or radically cut and privatized. It all depends on which course Congress takes, and that depends on your vote.” – Max Richtman, President & CEO, NCPSSM

Many, but not all, Republicans have staked out the position that Social Security should be cut in some way in order to restore solvency. They do not call their proposals “benefit cuts,” because that would be wildly unpopular. Instead, they speak of raising the retirement age, means testing, and lowering Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (or COLAs) – which are all benefit cuts!

Just last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson said that “entitlements” like Social Security are “a problem” – promising that Republicans have a “plan” to “fix it” next year. Though he didn’t specify what the GOP “plan” is, his remarks sent shivers up the spines of Social Security supporters. And rightly so.

Prominent Republicans also have raised the specter of privatizing Social Security – aka gambling workers’ payroll contributions on Wall Street. Last year, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted that Trump savings accounts for children actually were a “backdoor way of privatizing Social Security.”

In May, Senator Ted Cruz concurred that the Trump accounts were a Trojan Horse for privatization, calling it a “dirty little secret.” Not so secret anymore.

Senator Ted Cruz (left) & Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (right) admit that the Trump administration is hoping to privatize Social Security (Wikimedia Commons/Brittanica)

This is why it’s no exaggeration when we say the stakes of the 2026 elections are enormously high. While Republican leaders signal their intention to cut benefits without offering any legislation, Democrats have actually introduced several bills to strengthen Social Security – largely by demanding that the wealthy begin contributing their fair share. Legislation introduced by Senators Sanders, Warren, and Whitehouse (along with Reps. Boyle, Hoyle, and Larson in the U.S. House) would extend the life of the trust fund for decades — without cutting benefits.

No doubt, voters have a lot to navigate heading into the 2026 midterms. Issues like affordability, health care, and Trump’s military misadventures are competing for attention. “We hope that our new public education campaign will remind voters that their earned benefits are on the line this year,” says CEO Max Ricthman. “They worked hard and contributed to Social Security with every paycheck and have very right to expect their benefits in full. We must not allow lawmakers to break that promise.”

Our political action committee has already begun endorsing Senate candidates in key battleground races who champion Social Security, such as Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Roy Cooper (D-NC), and Chris Pappas (D-NH). On the House side, we are supporting (among others) Christina Bohannon (IA-01), Rebecca Cooke (WI-03), and Paige Cognetti (PA-08).

While their opponents are promoting ideas that would put Social Security at risk, these candidates have distinguished themselves as advocates for today’s seniors and future beneficiaries.

This is not a one-off messaging opportunity or a single ad buy. As the election season unfolds, we will continue rolling out new content, resources, and organizing opportunities so that voters can stay informed and engaged right up to Election Day.

**********************

Watch our documentary about the history of Social Security, including the 1983 reforms here.

Read our Social Security is on the Ballot press release here.

Read about the campaign in 401K Specialist here.

If Social Security Commissioner (and CEO of the IRS) Frank Bisignano brought anything with him from the corporate world, it is his ability to sell, sell, sell. At a June 10^th hearing on Capitol Hill, the former Wall Street executive did his best to sell the fiction that EVERYTHING IS JUST GREAT at the Social Security Administration – despite massive understaffing, poor morale, and outright abuse of beneficiaries’ personal data.

While House Ways and Means Committee Republicans responded to Bisignano’s testimony with complete credulity, Democrats and Social Security advocates would have appreciated — pardon the pun — a little more Frankness. And maybe even a smidge of humility.

Bisignano bragged in Trumpian fashion about “the best all-around performance ever at the Social Security Administration” and tossed around business buzzwords like “best in class” as if SSA were an airline instead of a public agency serving some 330 million Americans. He declared that the “American people are winning” because of SSA’s performance. He should have added, “So much winning.”

“The American people’s experiences are very different from what the Commissioner is reporting,” said NCPSSM senior Social Security expert Maria Freese on this week’s edition of Capital Quick Takes. “The reality is not as rosy as they claim.”

2025 protest against Trump/DOGE cutbacks at Social Security field office in Evanston, IL (Matthew Eadie, Evanston Now)

Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), the ranking Democrat on the House Work and Welfare Subcommittee, said Bisignano’s boasts of superior customer service do not align with what the congressman is hearing from his constituents in Illinois, who have complained of long waits at field offices, trouble making appointments, and problems getting help on the agency’s 1-800 number.  “People across the country report waiting in long lines at Social Security offices or being turned away and told to make appointments, only to discover no appointments are available,” Davis said.

Commonsense alone would suggest that you cannot cut some 8,000 jobs at agency that was already at historic staffing lows (at a time when its customer base is rapidly growing), creating an enormous ‘brain drain’ of experienced employees who know how Social Security works… and expect that customer service would actually improve.

Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has done excellent work debunking SSA’s claims of ‘great success’ in serving customers. 

“The loss of thousands of employees hit key customer service positions hard, including 3,800 staff who assist visitors at SSA field offices and callers to SSA’s national 800 number. SSA leadership responded by shifting thousands of remaining workers to new roles (with minimal training). But redistributing the too-few remaining workers to roles where they have little experience risks ameliorating one service delivery problem by exacerbating others.” – Kathleen Romig, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Under Bisignano, SSA has publicly released ‘data’ that purports to prove that customer service is “the best ever.”  The data is a little fuzzy, to say the least. SSA claims to have reduced wait times on its 1-800 phone lines. What they don’t say is that they consider a call to have been completed and the wait time over when an AI bot answers or when a customer requests a callback.  That doesn’t mean the callers’ question has been answered or their issue resolved.

“They fudge the numbers to get to some of these statistical claims,” says Freese, including the ludicrous claim that SSA has achieved an 80% drop in customer wait times!

CBPP’s Kathleen Romig has thoroughly debunked SSA’s claims of reduced wait times

Here’s a quick list of some of the misleading statements (if not outright falsehoods) that Bisignano peddled at the congressional hearing:“I inherited a mess from the Biden administration.”  WRONG! Under former Commissioner Martin O’Malley, customer service was actually improving despite chronic underfunding fron Congress.

“We didn’t close down any field offices.” MISLEADING!  In April, Business Insider reported that the Trump administration had at least temporarily closed in person services at more than a dozen field offices around the country, some for lack of resources due to DOGE cutbacks.“We didn’t shut down anything facing clients.” MISLEADING! While no customer-facing service has been permanently ‘shut down,’ SSA wants to cut back in-person service at field offices by 50%, forcing seniors and people with disabilities to seek on-line help. SSA also kept revising its phone service policies to limit the kinds of assistance customers could receive on the 1-800 number, forcing people online instead. Not every senior or person with disabilities has the technical resources to conduct all of their business online.“We are relentlessly fighting waste, fraud, and abuse.” MISLEADING! Actual Social Security fraud is exceedingly rare. Before the Trump administration took over, SSA was one of the most efficient federal agencies, with an overhead rate of less than 1%. But the Trump regime (beginning with Elon Musk and DOGE) used the excuse of hunting for waste and fraud to decimate the agency.

The real “abuse,” of course, is the administration’s misuse of Americans’ personal Social Security data for craven political purposes. The latest outrage was a whistleblower report that SSA planned to move 2.7 million living individuals onto the agency’s Death Master File as part of Trump’s war on immigrants. Our CEO called it “illegal and dangerous.” Bisignano glibly dismissed the report at this week’s hearing.

Two things are clear at this point:  1) Bisignano and his SSA will not truly be held accountable or expected to be straightforward until – and if – Congress changes hands next January and Democrats gain the power to do real oversight; (2) In the meantime, Bisignano will continue to try to convert SSA into a tech company instead of the sacred public trust it is meant to be.

****************************************************************************************

Post-Script

In his second role – CEO of the IRS – Commissioner Bisignano signed off on Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund last month. Today, a federal judge indefinitely barred the Trump administration from moving forward with the fund, which was created for the bogus purpose of compensating people claiming they were “persecuted” by the government, including convicted January 6th insurrectionists.

READ our CEO’s written testimony for the 7/10/26 hearing here.

WATCH Capital Quick Takes with our senior Social Security expert Maria Freese here.

(Registered Social Security Analysts image)

On Tuesday morning, The Social Security Administration (SSA) released its highly anticipated Trustees Report for 2026. The trustees project that the depletion date of the combined retirement and disability trust fund (OASDI) surplus will hold firm at 2034, at which time the program still could pay 83% of promised benefits. (Advocates and analysts expected the date to creep up one year to 2033.)

Interestingly enough, the trustees report blames Trump administration policies for the acceleration of trust fund insolvency – pointing to the Big, Ugly Bill which decreased tax revenues flowing into Social Security… in addition to Trump’s anti-immigration campaign. (Less immigration means fewer workers paying into the system.)

While the combined OASDI trust fund is projected to run out in 2034, most media outlets fixated solely on the retirement trust fund (OASI), which is predicted to become depleted in 2032 and able to pay only 78% of promised benefits. We believe the OASDI is more accurate, because, if needed, the retirement and disability trust funds could be combined to pay full benefits until 2034. 

Nonetheless, we saw the usual alarmist media headlines::: 

Social Security Insolvency Now projected for 2032, Putting Benefits at Risk of a 22% Cut!

We are rapidly running out of time:  Sounding the Social Security Alarm After 22% cut Confirmed!

Social Security Retirement Trust Fund Will Run Dry in 2032!

Regardless of whether the depletion date is 2032 or 2034, our response to the trustees report is that Congress must strengthen the program’s finances sooner than later:::

“The Social Security Trustees report is a clarion call for Congress to strengthen the program NOW before the looming depletion of the trust fund becomes a full-blown crisis. If Congress fails to act, the combined retirement and disability trust fund reserves will run dry in 2034 and beneficiaries will suffer an automatic 17% cut – a scenario few want to see happen.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM 

Democrats (including Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Brendan Boyle, and Rep. John Larson) have introduced legislation to strengthen Social Security by adjusting the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy begin paying their fair share. Some of these proposals would subject certain investment income to Social Security payroll taxes, as well. 

Unfortunately, Republicans seem intent on doing the opposite. Just ask House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said on Monday that “entitlements” like Social Security are a “problem” and that the GOP has plans to fix them next year. 

We know what that means: raising the retirement age, means testing, lowering COLAs, and other benefit cuts – if not outright privatization of the program. That is the GOP playbook on Social Security, coupled with rhetoric that insists Social Security is “going bankrupt” or “going broke.” 

In reality, nothing in the report supports the claim that Social Security is “bankrupt” or “going broke.” As long as Americans are working and paying into the system, Social Security will continue to pay benefits. “For the program itself to go ‘broke,’ there would have to be 100% unemployment — a highly unlikely scenario,” said Richtman in a press release. 

What often goes unmentioned in these conversations is the role of growing income inequality in Social Security’s financing gap. While critics frequently point to demographic changes like declining birth rates, that is only part of the story. As former Social Security Chief Actuary Steve Goss has explained in congressional testimony, a growing share of national income is concentrated among high earners — and much of that income is not subject to Social Security payroll taxes.

In other words, the system is not simply strained by demographics; wealth inequality is a significant aggravating factor. 

Fmr. Social Security Chief Actuary Steven Goss testified before Congress  in 2023 that increasing wealth inequality has contributed to the program’s financing shortfall

Whether Social Security will be improved or cut depends on who is elected to Congress in 2026. That’s why we have launched a public education campaign entitled, “Social Security is on the Ballot,” to help voters identify candidates who will strengthen the program in an equitable way that protects current and future beneficiaries from cuts.

“The stakes for current and future seniors couldn’t be higher,” says Richtman.  It all depends on which course Congress takes, and that depends on your vote.” 

*******************************

Read our CEO’s response to the Trustees Report HERE.