Mr Trump has stated these past and current positions. There is political rhetoric and then there is political rhetoric often vague and often unfulfilled.
But can’t we hear some specifics on keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent from anyone?
Social security, retirement and benefits for seniors
- Told Republicans in Congress not to cut “a single penny” from Medicare or Social Security
- Later made comments suggesting he was open to cuts to Medicare and Social Security; his team walked these back, and claimed the remarks were taken out of context
- Encouraged Republicans to focus their funding cuts on areas of “waste, fraud and abuse” in addition to programs dealing with foreign aid, immigration, climate change and LGBTQ rights, Reuters reported
- Said in a campaign statement he would reduce the cost of prescription drugs and health insurance premiums
Source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/donald-trump-political-views-2024/
Mr Trump seems to talk in generalities and about tax cuts. There is no way to keep these programs running as they are now unless there are cuts or higher taxes or both.
Democrats want to raise taxes on upper income workers. Even their plan doesn’t solve the problems, but it’s specific.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
There is a straightforward, bipartisan, intergenerationally-savvy, politically-savvy solution to social security funding which would make the program sustainable, indefinitely – without any future change.
Coming up with a solution isn’t an issue. The issue is that people want to change the benefits to continue to use the system to buy votes, and send the bill to others. For example, see most anything Bernie and Liz might propose regarding Social Security.
A politically-savvy, bipartisan, intergenerationally-savvy funding solution has a number of steps:
First, it starts with an admission by Congress that they deliberately, intentionally, consistently promised more than they were willing to tax – always anticipating that the bill would be shouldered by future taxpayers. That is, Congress needs to tell everyone in the system that they didn’t earn anything, and certainly not the promised benefit, they didn’t pay enough in FICA taxes.
Second, Congress must have the SSA confirm to everyone in the system, current workers and those already in a payout status, how much they failed to contribute, cumulatively, to make the system indefinitely sustainable.
Third, Congress should commit to never adjusting the SS benefit formula – so that there is a clear, defined target for funding. If Congress wants to add benefits, they should create a separate program, and, if necessary, offset what is part of Social Security.
Fourth, Congress should give each individual in the system a number of options or choices on how to fill the gap (increased taxes, reduced benefits (but not below poverty levels), defer commencement, etc.) – as a “surcharge” to fill the funding gap, because they all failed to pay enough because Congress failed to charge enough in FICA taxes and/or adopted a formula that provided benefits in excess of the funding, or both. Those options all have “pricetags”, where a surcharge is added to each in anticipation of antiselection.
Fifth, to ensure younger workers and future generations are certain they will receive the promised benefit, change Social Security from an entitlement to a contract – a contract among Americans.
Sixth, annually update the pricetags in step 4, so that additional legislative changes are never needed.
This works in everyday life, in corporate benefits, for example. It was always surprising to me how willing workers were to accept changes where they were honestly informed, and where they had a choice of options on how to address the challenge – and how favorable they perceived the change to make the system sustainable.
LikeLike
The pols can just keep ignoring any final solution. It is a good cudgel to use on the other party. They can keep using it for decades to swing at each other. Keep the checks coming by adding to the deficit.
LikeLike
Remember, the party of government always wants to raise taxes–the less we have the more they have and the more power they possess–
no doubt a reform like we hear from Mr. Douglas is probably never going to be in the cards–raising the “cap” is what I suspect we will see when we eventually admit there is a problem that needs solving.
LikeLike
It’s only one leg. Let it drop fifteen percent, or whatever is needed. It was never “fair” anyway. Some people receive a lot more than they paid in, and some pay their whole life and die before receiving few, if any benefits.
Billionaires would not even notice a fifteen percent cut. The wife and I invest our SS checks anyway, so we would just bank less. We are just an average income household.
For those who can’t absorb a fifteen percent cut, there are other social welfare programs to take up the slack. No one needs to go hungry.*
Instead of increasing employee/employer contributions, this might be a good time to encourage increasing (or starting) 401(k)s or IRAs. The individual can decide for himself how much he wants to allocate to present vs. future spending. What a concept.
*May need to increase marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels.
LikeLike
It’s insurance, a person could work with a pension for 30 years and die the day after retiring. It’s not a matter of fair. Sad to say, SS is more important to most people than you seem to think.
LikeLike