Social Security and Medicare Are Racing Toward Drastic Cuts—Yet Lawmakers Refuse To Act
Considering recent news, you may have missed that the 2025 trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare are out. Once again, they confirm what we've known for decades: Both programs are barreling straight toward insolvency. The Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund are each on pace to run dry by 2033.
When that happens, seniors will face an automatic 23 percent cut in their Social Security benefits. Medicare will reduce payments to hospitals by 11 percent. These cuts are not theoretical. They're baked into the law. If nothing changes, they will be made.
I have nothing against cuts of this size. In fact, if it were up to me, I would cut deeper. Medicare is a terrible source of distortions for our convoluted health care market and needs to be reined in. Social Security was created back when being too old to work meant being poor. That's no longer the case for as many people.
Thanks to decades of compound investment growth, widespread homeownership, and rising asset values, seniors are no longer the systematically vulnerable group they once were. The top income quintile includes a growing number of retirees who draw substantial incomes from pensions and investment portfolios with Social Security benefits layered on top. These programs have become a transfer of wealth from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy and old.
Of course, America still has some poor seniors, so cutting across the board is bad. This is why the cuts should be targeted, not the automatic effects in 2033. And Congress should get started now.
The size of the problem is staggering. Social Security's shortfall now equals 3.82 percent of taxable payroll or roughly 22 percent of scheduled benefit obligations. Avoiding insolvency eight years from now would require an immediate 27 percent benefit cut, according to former Social Security and Medicare trustee Charles Blahous.
Alternatively, legislators could raise the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 16.05 percent. That's a 29.4 percent increase. Or they could restructure Social Security so that only people who need the money would receive payments. But because facing this problem in an honest way is politically toxic, legislators are ignoring it.
Blame does not rest solely with Congress. The American public has made it abundantly clear that they don't want reforms. They don't want benefit cuts or tax increases, and they certainly don't want higher retirement ages. So politicians pretend everything is fine.
Congress does deserve fresh criticism for making things worse. Last year, legislators passed the misnamed "Social Security Fairness Act," giving windfall benefits to government workers who didn't pay into the system—which enlarges the shortfall. This year, the House proposed expanded tax breaks for seniors in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which would further worsen the problem.
The cost of political giveaways is steep. Social Security's 75-year unfunded obligation has now reached $28 trillion, up from $25 trillion just a year ago.
Medicare is no better. Its costs are projected to rise from 3.8 percent of gross domestic product today to 6.7 percent by the end of the century (8.8 percent under more realistic assumptions). Most of the additional spending will be financed through general revenue, meaning more borrowing and more pressure on the federal budget.
As Romina Boccia of the Cato Institute has documented, other countries have taken meaningful steps to address similar challenges. Sweden and Germany implemented automatic stabilizers that slow benefit growth or raise taxes when their systems become unsustainable. New Zealand and Canada have moved toward more modest, poverty-focused pension systems that offer basic support without bankrupting the state. A few weeks ago, Denmark increased the retirement age to 70.
These are serious reforms. The U.S. has done nothing.
Options exist. Policymakers could gradually raise the retirement age to reflect modern, healthier, longer lives. They could cap benefits at $2,050 monthly, preserving income for the bottom 50 percent of beneficiaries while progressively reducing benefits for the top half. They could reform the tax treatment of retirement income to encourage private savings, as Canada has done with its tax-free savings accounts. Any combination of these reforms would help.
But that would require admitting that the current path is unsustainable. It would require telling voters the truth. It would require courage. So far, these admirable traits have been sorely lacking in our politicians.
The programs' trustees have made the stakes clear: The only alternatives to reform will be drastic benefit cuts or massive tax hikes. Waiting until the trust funds are empty will leave no room for gradual, targeted solutions. It will force crisis-mode slashing that will hurt the most vulnerable.
The ultimate blame is with voters who continue to reward politicians for promising the impossible. A functioning democracy cannot survive if the electorate insists on voting benefits for themselves to the point of insolvency. At some point, reality asserts itself. That moment is rapidly approaching.
COPYRIGHT 2025
The post Social Security and Medicare Are Racing Toward Drastic Cuts—Yet Lawmakers Refuse To Act appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


News24
27 minutes ago
- News24
Trump says he's not offering Iran 'anything', nor speaking to them
Trump says the US 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear sites and denies offering talks. Iran demands that the US rules out further strikes before any negotiations. Tehran insists on the right to enrich uranium, calling US threats the 'law of the jungle'. US President Donald Trump said on Monday he was not offering Iran anything nor talking to it 'since we totally obliterated' the country's nuclear facilities. 'I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'Nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities.' The statement comes as Iran's deputy foreign minister told the BBC that talks between Washington and Tehran cannot resume unless the US rules out further strikes on Iran. Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the British broadcaster that the US had signalled it wants to return to the negotiating table a week after it struck three Iranian nuclear facilities. Takht-Ravanchi said: We have not agreed to any date, we have not agreed to the modality. 'Right now, we are seeking an answer to this question. Are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?' The US needs to be 'quite clear on this very important question', he said. The two countries were in talks over Tehran's nuclear programme when Israel hit Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure this month, with the US joining by bombing three nuclear sites - Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan - on 21 June. The deputy minister revealed to the BBC that the US had signalled it did 'not want to engage in regime change' by targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Takht-Ravanchi also said Iran should still be allowed to enrich uranium. He said: The level of that can be discussed, the capacity can be discussed, but to say that you should not have enrichment, you should have zero enrichment, and if you do not agree, we will bomb you, that is the law of the jungle. Israel claims that Iran's nuclear programme is close to producing a bomb, whereas Tehran says it is for peaceful purposes. It is not clear yet how much damage the strikes inflicted on Iran's nuclear facilities, which Trump has said were 'totally obliterated'. UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said Iran would probably be able to begin to produce enriched uranium 'in a matter of months'. Takht-Ravanchi said he did not know how long it would take. Under a 2015 deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium below 3.67% purity for fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018, and Iran responded by producing uranium enriched to 60% - above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.
President Donald Trump has insisted that the sites in Iran targeted by American airstrikes last week have been 'obliterated,' decimating its nuclear program—a claim that has been backed up by key administration officials despite an initial intelligence report finding that the damage was more moderate. But alongside the question of whether significant damage has been done to Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is another thorny issue that lawmakers must now address: the legality of Trump's decision to authorize the strikes in the first place. 'It's not just a matter of statutory interpretation, it's a matter of [the] Constitution requiring that Congress be the one to play a critical role in making a decision and using force,' said Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale Law School. 'For the president to make that decision unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful.' The president's power to use military force is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in response to the Vietnam War as an attempt to counter presidents' approval of military action without the consent of Congress. It was pushed through over President Richard Nixon's veto. The law requires that a president consult with Congress before engaging military forces, and report within 48 hours why the action was taken, under what authority, and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' It also says a president must terminate the use of military force within 60 days if he has not sought approval from Congress. Despite its intention to ensure a conflict such as the Vietnam War never occurred without congressional consent again, the War Powers Resolution has often been ignored by the White House. For decades, presidents have pushed the limits of their power to engage in conflicts, while Congress has continued to take the back seat in enforcing its constitutional authority to declare war. Several presidents have taken military action without following the letter of the War Powers Resolution, including President Bill Clinton ordering airstrikes in Kosovo and President Barack Obama authorizing intervention in Libya. But Michael Glennon, professor of constitutional and international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, argued Trump's actions were unique in that 'the risks entailed in this particular action are orders of magnitude greater than any of the supposed recent precedents.' He cited the threat of retaliation to the tens of thousands of U.S. troops posted around the Middle East, as well as 'stoking long-term regional animosities' and 'degrading the American reputation in diplomatic dealings with other countries.' 'In none of these recent cases was the context the same—the context being the exposure of the United States to a level of risk and cost that has not occurred before,' Glennon said. Trump's actions do follow a pattern of presidential engagement in conflict being followed by congressional dithering. Over several decades, presidents have learned that there will be little consequence for ignoring the War Powers Resolution. Hathaway said that cases challenging a president's actions do not typically go to court due to lack of legal standing. 'I don't think that that should lead us to think that there is no relevant law here, that this is a law-free zone where the president can do whatever he wants because he knows no one can actually enforce the rules,' said Hathaway. 'If the fact that there may not be consequences means that there's no law, then we've really got a problem on our hands.' Any pushback to unilateral presidential action may come from public disapproval of extended conflict rather than direct congressional action. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that the public is largely reacting to Trump's strikes in Iran with disapproval, although Republicans remain on board with the president's actions. 'Ultimately, Congress has not, in a significant way, constrained presidents from acting in these cases,' said Jordan Tama, professor in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University's School of International Service. 'The members of Congress who have been most concerned about violations of the War Powers Resolution, or presidential actions that are not authorized by Congress … have not been able to muster the majority you need in Congress to pass new binding legislation that explicitly prohibits the president from pursuing military action.' Trump's actions in Iran have been met with some pushback from lawmakers, particularly after a scheduled briefing by administration officials for lawmakers was postponed this week. Axios further reported that the White House is limiting the sharing of classified information with Congress. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is leading a resolution that would require Trump to seek congressional approval before engaging in further military hostilities in Iran, with an added amendment intended to alleviate concerns that it might hamper American support for Israel's activities in the region. Although the Senate is set to vote on the measure on Friday evening, it's unclear whether it would garner any Republican support in the upper chamber. Moreover, GOP Representative Thomas Massie, the Republican co-sponsor of a parallel measure in the House, said that a vote on his bipartisan resolution might be made moot if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds. Even if either of these measures makes it to the floor, however, it's unclear how much bipartisan support they would receive. Indeed, there is little political will to repudiate the president, and even if there was, lawmakers would need to marshal a veto-proof majority to take concrete action. Overturning a presidential veto would require support from two-thirds of members, which is unlikely in a Republican-majority Congress. In 2019, Congress approved a measure that would have pulled American support for Saudi Arabia's conflict in Yemen, but that resolution was vetoed by Trump. This puts Congress in a 'terrible fix,' said Hathaway: Rather than the president going to Congress to authorize military action, Congress must take the initiative to repudiate it. 'We end up with this learned helplessness in the sense that Congress chooses to stop trying, because what's the point?' said Hathaway. 'The president has learned that [he] can use military force without seeking authorities from Congress without consequence.' Aside from a seeming unwillingness to counter smaller-scale military engagements by presidents, Congress has similarly struggled to repeal or update authorizations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan approved ahead of the Gulf War and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2001 authorization, which applied to perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, has been treated by presidents as an umbrella approval to strike at other organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda. Efforts to overturn or narrow these authorizations have floundered in recent years, even decades after they were approved. Countering the president invites risk for members of Congress. For Republicans, resistance to the president's aims will only court Trump's retaliation. More generally, however, lawmakers take the view that authorizing the commencement of military engagements—or ordering them to cease—comes with unintended political consequences. Voting in favor of the 2003 authorization of military force in Iraq became a major political albatross for Democratic primary candidates in the 2008 presidential election. That said, repealing such an authorization invites blowback, as well, if, for example, the move to do away with such a law was followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, or U.S. interests getting threatened abroad. The status quo has a latent appeal to lawmakers, who get to offset the political risk of military intervention while maintaining the ability to criticize it—or take credit. 'Casting a dangerous vote on an issue of war and peace is a perilous political act, and they would prefer to avoid that, because they would prefer their careers be extended and not hindered,' said Glennon.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Rages at Democratic Senator Who Exposed Reality of His Iran Plan
Early Monday morning, President Donald Trump lashed out against Democratic Senator Chris Coons for mentioning reports that the Trump administration is looking to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran eerily similar to the Obama-era agreement Trump discarded during his first term. On Thursday, CNN, citing four sources familiar with the matter, reported that 'the Trump administration has discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds.' Trump at the time called such reports a 'HOAX' propagated by a 'SleazeBag' within the 'Fake News Media.' Coons cited the reports in a Sunday appearance on Fox News, telling host Shannon Bream, 'I'll just note that President Trump, by press accounts, is now moving towards negotiation and offering Iran a deal that looks somewhat similar to the Iran deal that was offered by Obama: tens of billions of dollars of incentives and reduced sanctions in exchange for abandoning their nuclear program.' A piqued Trump took to Truth Social just before 3 a.m., posting, 'Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities.' Trump set off the chain of events leading to his June 21 bombing of Iran by withdrawing from President Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018—a decision which prompted Iran to 'accelerate its nuclear program,' per Axios, which in turn led Trump, upon resuming office, to consider a renewed deal that geopolitics expert Jeffrey Lewis called 'a dollar-store' JCPOA. 'He's trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,' Lewis said earlier this month. This, of course, went up in smoke as the self-proclaimed dealmaker President Trump resorted to unlawful military action.