Proposals to reduce benefits for high earners are appropriate. I have joined colleagues at Brookings to propose a solvency plan with several such tough measures. However, proposals that compound gradually for decades or indefinitely risk fundamentally changing the program over the long term.
With no one or virtually no one receiving benefits at these levels all the savings from this proposal depend upon slowing or stopping the growth of the maximum benefit. Under the most aggressive approaches, the maximum benefit would eventually be cut in half and reach half of beneficiaries.
The proposed cap depends on when a worker starts benefits with caps of $35K, $50K and $62K for those who retire at age 62, 67, and 70. However, today even a person with 35 years of earnings at the taxable maximum is not receiving a $50K benefit at age 67 according to SSA.
A new proposal from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) would create caps on the maximum Social Security benefit, raising serious issues. In this short piece I examine the proposal. www.urban.org/urban-wire/s...
Accessing disability benefits at the Social Security Administration has gotten more difficult since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, according to new qualitative research.
www.nextgov.com/digital-gove...
Trump and Vought are now breaking both sides of spending law. They’re illegally not spending where the law requires them to spend, and they’re illegally spending where they don’t have the money to spend.
What we have is an appropriations king.
Spending “deals” are meaningless under that setup.
The Wa Post has issued an important story on an upcoming major SSA disability regulation that would especially affect older disabled workers: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...
1/2
9/ Policymakers, advocates, and researchers should pay close attention. The rule is likely to have profound policy and human consequences and could reshape disability policy for years to come.
8/ Many denied older workers may turn to early retirement benefits—cutting lifetime retirement income by up to 30%.
7/ In a hypothetical 10% cut scenario, 📉 500,000 people could lose access by the end of 10 years, as well as 80,000 widows and children and another 250,000 who lose eligibility for part of the period. $82B in reduced benefits and ripple effects on Medicare & Medicaid
6/ The impact could be huge: 📉 Up to 20% fewer SSDI applicants could qualify and up to 30% fewer older workers could qualify
5/ SSA is also reconsidering how age, education, and work experience factor into disability decisions. This could disproportionately impact older workers.
4/ BUT implementation matters. SSA must decide how to interpret ORS data—like whether enough jobs exist at certain skill levels. Policy direction on this will determine if people gain or lose eligibility.
3/ SSA plans to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles with the Occupational Requirements Survey from BLS. This modernizes the data and has bipartisan support.
2/ The rule has 3 major components: 🔹 Replacing outdated job data 🔹 Implementing new occupational data 🔹 Changing how age (and other factors) affect eligibility.
1/ SSA’s proposed rule could reduce disability benefit eligibility for hundreds of thousands of Americans—especially older workers. This makes it a Social Security retirement issue too.
🧵 Big changes may be coming to disability benefits. The Social Security Administration (SSA) is preparing a rule that could reshape how eligibility is determined for SSDI and SSI. Here’s what you need to know—and why it matters. www.urban.org/research/pub...
SSA needs to study these developments and analyze claim decisions. The changes may well be explainable but SSA has yet to acknowledge the issue. And SSA is operating with far fewer staff who have responsibility to analyze and improve the programs.
3rd, Disability adjudicators are more productive, as expected. SSA experienced very high turnover among adjudicators after the pandemic. SSA estimated a temporary 20% drop in productivity as new staff are trained. This underscores the importance of retaining government staff.
2nd, SSA is denying more initial claims. Even as initial decisions have increased by 159,000 for the fiscal year the number of approved claims is flat at about 812,000 with the average approval rate dropping from 38.3% to 36.0%.
1st, New applications for disability benefits are down by 7% this fiscal year (-163,000). While not unusual, this development is concerning if it is in response to very long waits for eligibility decisions and other factors discouraging claims.
The Administration has taken credit for a substantial drop in the Social Security disability claims backlog. In this piece I explore the concerning factors behind this drop, including fewer new applications and more denials. www.urban.org/urban-wire/s...
My new op-ed!
“The pocket rescission is just a beacon meant to draw our attention. Trump wants us to focus on the foreign aid impoundments — a shiny object he’s illegally deleting via a pocket rescission — so that we forget about the quiet impoundments of cancer research and preschool funding.”
See Kathleen Romig's great thread on yesterday's WH Social Security press release.
Important contrast.
People have been debating and worried about the Social Security Trust Fund shortfall for decades. It's widely seen as an enormous fiscal challenge.
One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts' permanent cost is actually *larger* than the Social Security Trust Fund shortfall.
Janet was at Treasury and I was at OMB when the Bush Administration tested this policy. The evaluation of the test showed high proportions of eligibles were deterred from applying and high administrative costs for IRS. Including this policy in reconciliation is a travesty.
The House reconciliation bill includes a provision that could keep many thousands of individuals from receiving EITC. This little noticed provision requires IRS to precertify millions of individuals for EITC. See this piece from Janet Holtzblatt. taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/one-b...
PROPOSED RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY Report Pursuant to Section 1012 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683) Agency: DEPARTMENT OF STATE Bureau: Other Account: Global Health Programs (019-1031 2025/2026) Amount proposed for rescission: $500,000,000 Justification: This proposal would rescind $500 million of the $4 billion appropriated in FY 2025 for Global Health Programs for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which funds activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases. This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like "family planning" and "reproductive health," LGBTQI+ activities, and "equity" programs. This rescission proposal aligns with the Administration's efforts to eliminate wasteful USAID foreign assistance programs. Enacting the rescission would reinstate focus, on appropriate health and life spending. This best serves the American taxpayer.
PROPOSED RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY Report Pursuant to Section 1012 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 683) Agency: DEPARTMENT OF STATE Bureau: Other Account: Global Health Programs (019-1031 2025/2029) Amount proposed for rescission: $400,000,000 Justification: This proposal would rescind $400 million of the $6 billion appropriated in FY 2025 for global health programs for the Department of State and implemented by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Global Health Programs account funds activities related to controlling HIV/ AIDS. This proposal would eliminate only those programs that neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests. This rescission proposal aligns with the Administration's efforts to eliminate wasteful foreign assistance programs. Enacting the rescission would restore focus on health and life spending. This best se~es the American taxpayer.
The rescissions request is out. This is very real. As with reconciliation, this is filibuster-proof, meaning that there is no Senate cloture vote, and Republicans can pass it even with all Dems opposed.
The White House is calling to cut global health programs, condemning people to die.
