There is a whole lot of news about Iran right now. There is also a lot of news about the big beautiful budget bill. Not as much as about Iran, but a lot. The problem with the budget news is that while the sausage is being made, a lot of people make bold statements about their "inflexible" demands, in hopes of negotiation-via-media. Almost inevitably, it turns out that "inflexible" actually means "open for discussion." Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the most maverick member of the Senate Republican Caucus, has clarified that when he said he'd never vote for the budget bill, what he actually meant was "I would like to see some changes, but if not, then that's life."
The point is that we don't write about every budget-related news story, because often that information is out of date within a week, and sometimes within a day. That said, the three things that are clear right now are: (1) The rulings from Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough have blown some pretty big holes in the bill passed by the House; (2) Some of those holes mean that math that was already fuzzy and didn't really add up is now really fuzzy and definitely doesn't add up; and (3) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is going to keep the Senate's nose to the grindstone over the weekend, in hopes of making some sort of progress.
One thing we have not seen anyone connect to the budget bill debate is the status of Social Security. That is always an issue these days, but one that exists only on the periphery. The members know that allowing any harm to come to Social Security would be political suicide, but they also know that any steps taken to shore up the program will require tough and politically problematic choices. So, since insolvency for the trust fund is in "the future," they just keep kicking the can down the road.
The problem is that the end of the road is now officially in sight. Given the rules of the filibuster, some aspects of the budget bill will be designed to last for 10 years. That puts us into the year 2035. And last week, the trustees of the Social Security system released their annual report, in which they said that the trust fund is going to run out of money a year earlier than expected, which means that if no changes are made, then the well will run dry in... 2034. So, Congress is now officially dealing with budget bills that overlap with armageddon.
As we have noted many times before, and as most readers presumably know, Social Security payments will not end if the trust fund is completely used up. The payments will just have to be made entirely from incoming revenues, which in turn would mean a cut in benefits of about 25%. A 25% cut is better than a 100% cut, of course, but even that would still leave many recipients hopping mad. Further, there are millions and millions of people who live solely on their Social Security checks and who barely make ends meet. Obviously, barely making ends meet - 25% = no longer able to make ends meet.
We doubt that this consideration will enter the current discussion. Clearly, if Republicans are willing to slash Medicaid right now, even if millions of people will lose their health insurance, they are not too concerned about what will happen to retirees in 10 years. But the Democrats would be wise to craft a talking point, sooner rather than later; something along these lines: "These tax cuts for millionaires are going to make it even harder to keep Social Security functioning!" We will see if any of them take up that particular banner in the next few weeks or months. (Z)