A second straight debate—quite likely the last of the 2024 election cycle—has come and gone with no mention whatsoever of retirement or Social Security’s looming insolvency.
Just like in the one and quite likely only presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, Tuesday night’s debate between vice president candidates Tim Walz and J.D. Vance covered plenty of issues, but once again completely sidestepped a key issue to undecided voters.
OK, J.D. Vance did utter the words “Social Security” while introducing himself, saying that his grandmother needed Social Security benefits to put food on their table. But that was literally the only mention of Social Security during the entire debate—and the topic was never broached at all during the Trump-Harris debate back on Sept. 10.
Yes, during the CNN-hosted debate between Trump and then-candidate Joe Biden on June 27, both candidates were asked about how they would save the program, but they instead they mainly attacked each other, with Biden in his dismal, reelection bid-ending debate performance also saying he’d make the wealthy “pay their fair share” and leaving 82 seconds left of his two allotted minutes to further explain his position. When it was his turn, Trump said Biden was “destroying” Social Security. “Because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they’re putting them on to Social Security; they’re putting them on to Medicare, Medicaid,” Trump said. “They’re putting them in our hospitals. They’re taking the place of our citizens.”
I was hopeful that the next debate, between Trump and subsequently anointed Democratic candidate Harris on Sept. 10, would provide another opportunity for the candidates to outline positions regarding Social Security. Nada.
I find it frustrating and somewhat baffling that one of the most pressing issues facing our country was ignored during the two most high-profile events with the widest audiences designed to help Americans understand candidate positions on a range of important issues that may well determine how they vote.
We’re talking about a program that provides retirement security to more than 65 million Americans, many of whom depend on it as their primary or even sole source of income. Yet in a pair of debates filled with rhetoric about the future of the economy and supposed interest in helping working-class families, there was never one mention the looming crisis of Social Security’s depletion, projected to hit within the next decade.
Indeed, without action from policymakers, the Social Security trust fund will run dry by 2033 or 2034, and when that happens, beneficiaries could see a benefit cut of about 20-25% in their monthly payments. For millions of retirees, that would mean the difference between a stable retirement and real financial hardship. And for younger generations, it raises doubts about whether they’ll eventually receive any benefits at all after paying into the system for decades.
A recent poll from Bloomberg/Morning Consult found that the issue of Social Security and Medicare is “very important” for helping 67% of voters decide who to cast a ballot for in the Nov. 5 presidential election. In a separate AARP poll, 55% said Social Security is or will be a major source of their income, and 80% said it will be an extremely or very important issue in determining their vote.
Seems worth a question in a 90-minute debate, no? Surely much of the blame for the omission lies with those moderators at ABC and CBS responsible for posing the questions. They decided not to bring it up, and neither did any of the candidates in their comments.
I know—it’s a political anchor, which is why most every politician looking to get re-elected would rather keep kicking this can down the road than risk having to say we’ll have to either cut benefits and/or raise taxes (or the retirement age) to shore up the program.
National polling shows voters are overwhelmingly against cutting benefits to fix Social Security. Nearly 80% of Americans, including 77% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats, say Social Security benefits should not be reduced in any way, according to Pew Research Center.
Despite the bipartisan consensus, both presidential candidates have largely avoided providing any specifics on the campaign trail, each vowing to protect the program but offering sparse details on how they plan to fix it. Trump has even called for an end to taxing Social Security benefits, which without a “payfor” would increase the budget deficit by about $1.6 trillion over 10 years while further accelerating Social Security’s pending insolvency—perhaps by as much a 2 years, according to an Aug. 2 blog post from Tax Foundation’s Garrett Watson.
Meanwhile, Harris seems inclined to stick with President Biden’s desire to shore up the program by raising taxes on those making more than $400,000 per year. Currently, only $168,600 of an individual’s annual earnings are subject to Social Security taxes.
But I digress. Main point is voters deserve to hear candidates seeking the highest offices in the land questioned before a large, engaged audience of Americans about how they would safeguard a program that has been a cornerstone of retirement security for generations. It’s certainly a topic worthy of debate on such a stage, and the powers that be blew it two times out of three.
Ignoring the issue now has a real impact later. We all know the longer we wait to address Social Security’s problems, the more drastic (and distasteful) the solutions will need to be.
SEE ALSO:
• Social Security Insolvency Could Result in $900K Benefits Loss
• Typical Retiring Couple Facing $16,500 Social Security Benefit Cut in 2033
• Where the Candidates Stand on Social Security