The August 5 Senate Finance Committee hearing on "Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency" focused on the potential for a commission to examine proposals for shoring up the program, which trustees now estimate can only pay 100% of scheduled benefits until Q4 of 2032, threatening benefit cuts of up to 22%. During a June subpanel hearing, it was noted by members that the actions of the Social Security commission in the 1980s have sustained the program for over 40 years. However, some members and groups today aired strong feelings against establishment of a commission.

Policy options have long included increasing taxes on higher-income individuals, favored by Democrats, and addressing waste, fraud and abuse, as Republicans typically advocate for. Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID), who was a member of the 2010 Bowles-Simpson commission that developed a bipartisan solvency plan that wasn't enacted, said the work nonetheless informed subsequent Social Security solvency discussions. He said the so-called 'Greenspan Commission' of the 1980s "demonstrated the value of creating a forum where policymakers could work through difficult issues and build consensus on a bipartisan basis."

Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) was staunchly opposed to what he said would be "an unaccountable 'commission' that will rubber stamp benefit cuts like increasing the retirement age." He said he wants the Finance Committee to do the work of fixing the program's problems and that "the concept being discussed today would act as a shortcut for Republicans to carry out their long-sought goal of slashing Social Security benefits for retirees and raising taxes for the middle class."

Chairman Crapo said the hearing was not intended to advocate for a particular solution. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) asserted that a commission-type effort would be bipartisan and, ideally, involve the House to look at solutions and shouldn't be portrayed as partisan. Senator Cassidy has proposed the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone (PROMISE) Act (S. 4979), a bipartisan bill that provides that Congress present options to tax-writing committees to be voted on under a schedule and sets other parameters. Cassidy expressed frustration at every issue in Congress being made political. "This is not about a solution," he said. "This is about a process to arrive at the solution."

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) said the program's shortfall is promising to be a "disaster" and would be followed soon after by financial challenges in the Medicare Hospital Insurance Fund, which is forecast to become insolvent in 2033. Committee members Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have separate proposals to lift the Social Security payroll tax cap of $184,500, and Warren was joined in her rollout by Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH).

Witnesses were Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Nancy LeaMond of AARP, Charles Blahous of George Mason University, and Rebecca Vallas of the National Academy of Social Insurance. Blahous was Executive Director of the Social Security commission under President George W. Bush in 2001, with a focus on privatization, and he held other economic roles in that Administration.

Goldwein advocated for "a special process to give deliberations a less political space that will allow policymakers to develop, socialize, and debate thoughtful proposals, seek public input, and build the bipartisan and bicameral common ground needed to restore solvency." Blahous pointed to the 1983 amendments to the program that resulted from a commission as demonstrating "the value lawmakers on both sides of the aisle saw in preserving Social Security's longstanding design as a solvent, self-financing income insurance program."

LeaMond said, "Congress should do this work itself — openly, transparently, and deliberatively, through regular order — rather than outsourcing it to commissions or forcing it through fast-track procedures that restrict debate and amendments." Vallas said the public has been "clear about the direction they prefer: protect benefits, strengthen the program for groups left behind, and bring in the revenues needed to keep Social Security strong for generations to come."

During questioning, Ranking Member Wyden emphasized his support for working on Social Security legislation, and not a commission. Senator Cassidy suggested that any resulting legislation will be developed under regular order before moving to the tax-writing committees. LeaMond said she opposes a commission. Senator Grassley said he is open to any process to reach a bipartisan solution and asked how groups intend to foster that. LeaMond her group believes the Finance Committee is where ideas should be debated and action taken.

Senator Warren advocated for her proposal to lift the payroll tax cap. "That one reform alone would impact about 6% of all households, the highest earning Americans, and would protect Social Security benefits for at least two decades," she said.

Senator Sanders also asked witnesses about proposals to increase the income-based payroll tax cap. Witnesses said that should at least be examined or would probably be part of a bipartisan solution. "The bottom line here is, at a time when the people on top have never ever had it so good and seniors are struggling, we've got to do what senior advocates for years have said, lift that cap," Senator Sanders said.

Member statements and witness testimony are available here.