First term, no action. Into second year of second term only action has been to make the condition of the SS trust worse.
Throughout his first run for office, Trump emphasized his commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare as a way to appeal to a broad range of voters. His strategy included the following core tenets:
• He asserted that his primary plan for the program was to protect benefits while eliminating fraud and mismanagement within the system.
• He argued that by fostering robust economic growth and increasing job creation, he could boost payroll tax revenues, which would naturally strengthen the system without the need for benefit cuts.
• His public messaging focused on the idea that the program was an essential commitment to seniors that should be held “sacred”.
During his 2026 State of the Union address, Trump reiterated his commitment to always protect both Social Security and Medicare.
President Trump has consistently argued that robust economic growth—fueled by his administration’s policies of deregulation, tax cuts, and domestic energy production—is the primary solution to shoring up Social Security.
His strategy rests on the “supply-side” economic theory that a faster-growing economy will generate significantly higher tax revenues, even at lower tax rates, thereby replenishing the Social Security Trust Fund without the need for benefit cuts or raising the retirement age.
The “Growth as a Fix” Argument
According to the 2026 Economic Report of the President, the administration maintains that:
- Revenue through Growth: By targeting a sustained GDP growth rate of roughly 4% per year (compared to the historical average of 2%–3%, the historical moving average is 2.7%) the administration argues it can collect enough federal revenue to eliminate the projected Social Security solvency gap. Federal revenue doesn’t fund Social Security
- Debt Reduction: The administration’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) has projected that this growth, combined with spending reforms, will decrease the federal debt-to-GDP ratio from 117% to 94% over a 10-year window, which they argue provides the “fiscal space” needed to ensure Social Security remains solvent. What’s the connected between FICA taxes and federal debt?
- Wages and Payroll Tax: The argument also posits that higher employment and rising wages (projected to increase by $4,000 to $7,200 per worker under the OBBBA tax plan) will naturally increase the amount of payroll taxes flowing into the system. Already factored in.
Facts about the Social Security trust
Social Security’s benefit formula is tied to wage growth, so faster growth tends to boost both sides of the ledger. That means growth may delay insolvency a bit, but it does not close the structural gap created by longer life expectancy, lower birthrates, and a shrinking ratio of workers to retirees. A 2025 analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says even a return to 1990s-style productivity and labor-force growth would not restore solvency.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Why such vitriol for the idiot ass Trump?
Every president since Bill Clinton knew we have a problem – Clinton Part 1, Clinton Part 2, Bush II Part 1, Bush II Part 2, Obama Part 1, Obama Part 2, Trump Part 1, Biden, Trump Part 2.
They all failed to take action.
Trump is no better, no worse.
Here is a blog I posted October 23, 2017 – 9 years ago:
House Senate Action Needed on Social Security
We are already making substantial progress in the employer-sponsored retirement savings marketplace.
The Government Accountability Office recently issued a report which cites Plan Sponsor Council of America survey results – GAO-18-111SP, “The Nation’s Retirement System: A Comprehensive Re-evaluation Is Needed to Better Promote Future Retirement Security” (https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687797.pdf).
The report asserts: “The U.S. retirement system, and the workers and retirees it was designed to help, face major challenges. …Fundamental changes have occurred over the past 40 years to the nation’s current retirement system, made up of three main pillars: Social Security, employer-sponsored pensions or retirement savings plans, and individual savings. …there has been a marked shift away from employers offering traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plans to defined contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k)s.”
Importantly, they note: “The three pillars of the current retirement system in the United States are anticipated to be unable to ensure adequate benefits for a growing number of Americans due, in part, to the financial risks associated with certain federal programs. Social Security’s retirement program (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance): Beginning in 2035, this program is projected to be unable to pay full benefits.“
They recommend, in part “Congress should consider establishing an independent commission to comprehensively examine the U.S. retirement system and make recommendations to clarify key policy goals for the system and improve how the nation promotes retirement security.”
If there is a “retirement crisis” in America, it isn’t the result of less access to DB plans or the dominance of 401(k) plans. While it would be nice to see Congress create a national retirement policy, that isn’t it either.
If we have a “retirement crisis,” it is the result of Americans’ failure to save and a government promise of Social Security benefits that are much greater than projected tax revenues.
Failure to Save:
Without exception, for the past 35 years, every American wage earner has had access to a tax preferred savings vehicle – the Individual Retirement Account.
A worker age 25 in 1982, who contributed the maximum each year and earned 5 percent on his or her investments could retire at the Social Security Normal Retirement Age of 66 and use the combination of savings and Social Security to maintain his or her pre-retirement standard of living (author’s calculations). Most wage earners have also had periods of employment where their employer sponsored a plan.
Social Security Funding:
In June 2017, the average Social Security benefit was $1,369. About 61 percent of retired workers count on Social Security to provide at least half of their monthly income. So, in 2035, when the Trust funds are exhausted, without action, benefits will be reduced to match what can be financed by payroll taxes. This is nothing new – it’s been known since 1983, which was the last time Social Security was reformed.
See: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2017/tr2017.pdf
Social Security Reform Over the Last 25 Years:
• November 5th, 1993: President Bill Clinton, by Executive Order #12878, created the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement Reform (the Danforth Commission) to evaluate entitlement programs – specifically Social Security and Medicare. The Commission never reached consensus and couldn’t get all members to agree on even an Interim Report. Subsets of the commission members made their own proposals. None gained any traction, nor action. See: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=61571
• February 5, 2005: President George W. Bush made a reform recommendation to add personal accounts and change the COLA. These proposals triggered great criticism, and no action was taken. See: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/social-security/ See also: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/04/200504…
• April 27, 2010: The bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (often called Simpson-Bowles) met to recommend fiscal reform, including recommendations to reform Social Security. Despite widespread popular support, the report failed to get enough support to send it to Congress for approval. • June 1, 2016: President Barack Obama, nearing the end of this second term, reminded us that Social Security’s finances needed strengthening. “We should be strengthening Social Security… it’s time we finally made Social Security more generous and increased its benefits so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they’ve earned.” No proposal was ever made. See: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/01/remarks…
• Today’s GAO report echoes President Obama: “… (we) better ensure a secure and adequate retirement, with dignity, for all.” But, it offers no plan of action other than another committee.
Retirement in America is a relatively new phenomenon.
As recently as the 1960’s, only a handful of Americans successfully prepared for retirement. Very few had a retirement plan – defined benefit or defined contribution – and only a small minority of those workers vested, and only a subset of those who vested survived to receive the promised benefit.
Due to the Depression and WWII, many had breaks in employment, which depressed their Social Security benefits. Most wage earners had minimal savings – few owned mutual funds or certificates of deposit. Most relied on passbook savings at their bank or savings and loan.
Work was much more physical, blue collar.
Just 50 years ago, retirement in America was very different; most worked until physically spent then “retired” to a mostly sedentary lifestyle and survived maybe 10 or so years.
Progress is being made. Workers are successfully retiring. Some are redefining retirement through second careers and phased retirement.
Our voluntary, employer-sponsored retirement system deserves lots of credit – many plan sponsors made improvements after the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 2006).
The biggest risks we face to this progress is our failure to take action on Social Security funding and the potential of tax reform proposals that would curtail employer-sponsored plans. Congress should start first with Social Security funding, while allowing plan sponsors more time to consider, adopt, and implement PPA 2006 automatic features.
LikeLike