Congress needs a plan to prevent Social Security funds from running short by 2032. Many Senate candidates shared unexpected positions on fixing the program. Senator Roger Marshall said, "I would eliminate the cap altogether." He and other candidates now support taxing higher earners to keep the retirement system stable today.
Congress needs a plan to prevent the program's funds from running short by 2032. Many Senate candidates have shared their positions -- some of them unexpected.
Republican senators rarely endorse raising taxes, especially from under the lights of a debate stage. But Senator Roger Marshall, the Kansas incumbent seeking re-election, said he supported the idea to strengthen Social Security.
"I would eliminate the cap altogether," Mr. Marshall said in a debate last Wednesday, referring to the $184,500 income ceiling on payroll taxes, the dedicated tax that finances the social insurance program. That means higher earners would be subject to taxes on a larger share of their income. His Democratic opponent, Adam Hamilton, supported raising the cap -- though he wasn't yet sure by how much.
With the midterms approaching, more major-party candidates have begun sharing their positions on shoring up Social Security, both in live debates, political ads and campaign websites. The senators up for election now will be in office when Social Security's retirement trust fund is expected to run dry in late 2032. If that happens, the more than 60 million people receiving Social Security retirement, spousal and survivor benefits would see that income cut by at least 22 percent, unless Congress comes up with a plan.
Many Senate candidates in battleground states have clung to expected party lines and broad pledges to protect the program. But a growing number of Republican candidates, including Mr. Marshall, have said they're open to the idea of subjecting more earned income to Social Security taxes. They join sitting Republican lawmakers including Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio and Representatives Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania.
It's a testament to the problem lawmakers are facing: For more than 90 years, the popular program has been a reliable and stabilizing force, keeping millions of seniors out of poverty and providing a backstop for retirees. It's also long been called the third rail of politics -- touching it can be political dynamite.
Lawmakers generally have two major levers to strengthen the program: cutting benefits, raising taxes or some combination of the two.
Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.