JAN. 2025. Blues Vol 41 No. 1

to federal deficits over

to federal deficits over 10 years,according to the CongressionalBudget Office.Social Security Trust Fundswere already estimated to beunable to pay out full benefitsbeginning in 2035, and thechange will hasten the program’sinsolvency date by abouthalf a year. A typical dual-incomecouple retiring in 2033would see an additional ,000lifetime reduction in their benefits,according to the nonpartisanCommittee for a ResponsibleFederal Budget.Many of the bill’s opponentsacknowledged that the currentreductions are not fair to publicservice retirees, but said theycould not support the bill whenthe entire program faces challenges.“We caved to the pressure ofthe moment instead of doing thison a sustainable basis,” said Sen.Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republicanwho opposed the bill.The policy changes will alsoheap more work on the SocialSecurity Administration when theagency is already at its loweststaffing level in 50 years. Theagency currently has a staffof about 56,400 — the lowestlevel since 1972, according to anagency spokesperson — evenas it serves more people thanever. The stopgap governmentfunding bill that also passedearly Saturday did not includeincreased funding for the agency,which is currently in a hiringfreeze.Still, Republican supporters ofthe bill said there was a rare opportunityto address what theydescribed as an unfair sectionof federal law that hurts publicservice retirees.“They have earned these benefits.This is an unfair, inequitablepenalty,” said Sen. Susan Collins,a Maine Republican.GOP supporters of the bill alsosaid they would return to workon larger fixes to Social Security.President-elect Donald Trump,however, has said he will nottouch the benefits, even as hisadministration looks to makedeep budget cuts elsewhere.Senate Republicans are nonethelessworking on ideas thatwould put the program on betterfinancial footing, but also inevitablyrequire a scale-back inbenefits. One fiscal hawk, Sen.Rand Paul, pushed Friday for aproposal to gradually raise theSocial Security retirement age to70, although a vote to add thatprovision to the bill only receivedthree votes in favor of it.“There’s so much riding on usgetting this right and having thecourage to fix Social Securityover the next few years,” Tillissaid. “We will rue the day thatwe failed to do it.”46 The BLUES - JANUARY ‘25

The BLUES - JANUARY ‘25 47