David Camp, NOSSCR Senior Policy Advisor

Five and a half months until the midterms. Less than eight years until the Social Security trust funds run dry. Both of those clocks are running, and they should be running together this fall.

I have written before that the actuarial choices in front of Social Security are math problems, and the choices are a political question. The math has only gotten clearer since I last wrote that.

The numbers

Per the 2025 Trustees Report, the combined OASI and DI trust fund reserves are projected to be depleted in 2034. If Congress does nothing, ongoing payroll-tax and benefit-tax revenue would still cover roughly 81% of scheduled benefits at that point. The OASI fund alone runs out in 2033—just 77 percent of benefits payable then. DI on its own is fine for the entire 75-year window, which is one reason any the solvency conversation treats OASI and DI together. The Chief Actuary lays the depletion math out plainly at ssa.gov/oact/trsum.

Since the Trustees Report came out, the OBBBA tax law has accelerated the timetable. On August 5, 2025, Chief Actuary Karen Glenn told Senator Wyden the combined trust funds are now projected to deplete in the first quarter of 2034 (half a year sooner because of the OBBBA). The 75-year actuarial shortfall widened from 3.82% of taxable payroll to 3.98%. That memo is here: ssa.gov/oact/solvency/RWyden_20250805.pdf. Whatever your views on OBBBA, the actuary’s score is the actuary’s score.

The dials Congress can turn

Solvency is not magic. There are a finite number of dials that can be turned to restore solvency, and the Chief Actuary has scored most of the realistic combinations. The big categories are: COLA changes, the level of monthly benefits (the PIA formula), retirement age, family benefits, payroll-tax rate, coverage of additional earnings (including raising or eliminating the cap), trust-fund investment policy, taxation of benefits, and various forms of general-revenue infusion. The Chief Actuary’s full menu, with 75-year and 75th-year scoring on each option, is at ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions. A summary booklet is at ssa.gov/oact/solvency/provisions/summary.pdf.

Closing the 3.82% shortfall with payroll taxes alone would mean a contribution rate of roughly 8% on workers and employers each, up from 6.2% today. Closing it with benefit cuts alone would mean a roughly 22% across-the-board cut—which is essentially what happens automatically if Congress does nothing. Nearly every serious proposal mixes revenue and benefit changes. The National Academy of Social Insurance walks through the choices in Social Security at 90, a 2025 report that draws on the Chief Actuary’s scoring throughout.

One sobering point from NASI: nearly the entire deterioration of Social Security’s outlook since the 1983 Greenspan amendments traces back to rising earnings inequality eroding the payroll-tax base. The 1977 framers expected 90 percent of earnings to fall under the cap; we are now at about 83 percent.

On the Hill

There are real bills in front of committees. None are likely to pass before November, but every one of them is a legitimate way for a candidate to plant a flag. Four worth knowing about:

• Social Security Expansion Act, S. 770 (Sanders, Warren, Merkley, Welch, Padilla, Smith, Van Hollen, Markey, Booker, Gillibrand, Whitehouse) and H.R. 1700 (Hoyle and 37 cosponsors)—applies the payroll tax to earnings above $250,000, taxes investment income at the OASDI rate for high earners, improves the minimum benefit and switches to CPI-E. This would extend solvency past the 75-year window.

• S.Res. 579 (Cassidy, Kaine, King, Curtis, Grassley, Durbin)—a bipartisan Senate resolution agreed to in January, affirming that Social Security must be preserved, protected, and strengthened. A resolution is not a fix, but a half-dozen senators of both parties signing the same piece of paper on this question is more than we have had in a while.

• The Cassidy-Kaine Big Idea framework—a $1.5 trillion sovereign-wealth-style investment fund seeded with general revenue, with returns credited to Social Security after 75 years, paired with repeal of the automatic 2034 benefit cut. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s explainer is at bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/whats-the-big-idea. Reasonable people disagree on the math, but this is the most prominent bipartisan framework currently in circulation.

• Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act, H.R. 1221 (Walberg)—a House Republican proposal to hold OASDI surpluses in a protected account and stand up an investment commission. Again, not a complete fix, but a marker.

Then there is Congressman Larson’s Social Security 2100 framework, which NOSSCR has endorsed when it was pending in prior congresses. In the 118^th Congress, these were the 189 cosponsors. Larson has been the most consistent Democratic voice on solvency-plus-benefit-enhancement for the better part of a decade and has signaled he will reintroduce the bill. Watch for it.

What this means for November

NOSSCR isn’t partisan, and this column isn’t going to tell you who to vote for. But there is a fair question every NOSSCR member can take into a voting booth this fall, and it goes like this: does the candidate on this ballot take Social Security trust fund solvency seriously?

Three concrete tests:

1. Has the candidate published a proposal—on their own campaign site, in an op-ed, in a town-hall document—that engages the dials? Not “protect Social Security,” which is what every candidate says. An actual proposal with numbers, even outlines.

2. Has the candidate cosponsored a bill on point? Any of those above, or another scored proposal, is evidence they are willing to put their name on something.

3. Has the candidate made public statements—on the floor, in a debate, in committee—that show they understand the math and intend to legislate, not just to issue press releases? “We will not cut benefits” without a financing answer does not clear the bar. “We will not raise the payroll tax on anyone” without a benefit answer does not either.

This is not a demand that every candidate sign onto a single plan. It is a demand that every candidate has a plan. The longer Congress waits, the steeper every option on the Chief Actuary’s list becomes. A solvency package enacted in 2026 looks a lot different—and easier—than one enacted in 2032 with a deadline three months out.

---