Under current projections, Social Security’s retirement trust fund could become depleted in the early 2030s. If Congress does not change the law, scheduled tax revenue would then be enough to cover only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits. Recent projections translate that shortfall into an estimated 22% reduction in benefits beginning in 2032.

That does not mean retirees are facing an immediate 22% cut. It means Congress must act before the trust fund’s reserves are exhausted if it wants to prevent an automatic reduction under current law.

Lawmakers propose a path toward reform

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Bill Cassidy, R-La., have become leading figures in a bipartisan effort to force Congress to address the problem.

Their PROMISE Act would not itself raise taxes or reduce benefits. Instead, it would establish a process through which the bipartisan Social Security Advisory Board would develop legislation designed to keep the program solvent for at least 50 years.

A separate bipartisan proposal in the House, the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act of 2026, would create a commission charged with developing recommendations to restore solvency for an even longer period.

The proposals reflect an increasingly urgent political reality: lawmakers agree that Social Security’s finances need attention, but they remain divided over who should bear the cost.

Option 1: Tax more income

One of the most frequently discussed solutions is to increase the amount of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes.

In 2026, workers pay Social Security payroll taxes on earnings up to $184,500. Income above that threshold is generally not subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Some proposals would eliminate the cap entirely. Others would create a new taxable range for high earners while leaving the existing system in place for most workers.

According to analyses cited by CBS News, different approaches to raising or eliminating the taxable wage cap could close a substantial portion of Social Security’s projected long-term financing gap.

Supporters argue that requiring higher earners to contribute more could raise significant revenue without increasing payroll taxes on most workers.

Option 2: Increase the payroll tax

Another approach would raise the Social Security payroll tax rate.

Workers currently pay 6.2% of covered wages, while employers generally pay another 6.2%, for a combined rate of 12.4%.

Increasing the rate would generate additional revenue immediately, but it would also increase the cost of employing workers and reduce take-home pay for employees.

Analysts therefore view a payroll-tax increase as financially powerful but politically difficult.

Option 3: Raise the retirement age

Congress could also increase the age at which workers qualify for full Social Security benefits.

The full retirement age is currently 67 for people born in 1960 or later.

Raising that age further would reduce the program’s long-term costs because people would receive their full scheduled benefits later.

But critics argue that raising the retirement age effectively amounts to a benefit reduction, particularly for workers in physically demanding occupations or people who cannot continue working into their late 60s.

A Congressional Budget Office analysis has found that increasing the full retirement age from 67 to 69 would reduce annual benefits by an average of about 13%.

Option 4: Reduce benefits for higher earners

Another possibility is changing the benefit formula so that higher-income retirees receive smaller increases or lower benefits.

This approach would preserve the basic Social Security structure while directing more resources toward lower- and middle-income beneficiaries.

Some proposals would also place limits on benefits received by very high-income households.

Supporters argue that Social Security should focus more heavily on retirement income security for people who depend on the program most.

Opponents counter that workers who paid more into Social Security should not necessarily receive substantially less in return.

Option 5: Change the cost-of-living adjustment

Congress could also modify how Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, is calculated.

Even small changes to the annual adjustment can have significant effects over many years because the difference compounds as benefits increase.

Supporters of changing the formula argue that it could reduce long-term costs without imposing an immediate benefit cut.

Critics warn that reducing COLAs could gradually erode retirees’ purchasing power, particularly as older Americans face rising medical and housing costs.

Option 6: Use other sources of federal revenue

Some lawmakers and policy groups have proposed using additional taxes or other federal revenues to strengthen Social Security.

The underlying principle is straightforward: instead of reducing benefits, Congress could increase the amount of money flowing into the system.

The challenge is determining which taxpayers should provide that additional revenue and whether Congress could reach the bipartisan agreement necessary to enact it.

There is no painless solution

The central problem facing Congress is that Social Security’s long-term gap cannot be closed without making difficult choices.

Broadly, lawmakers can:

Raise revenue → reduce spending → or combine both.

Raising taxes places more of the burden on workers, employers or higher-income Americans.

Reducing benefits places more of the burden on current or future retirees.

Delaying action leaves fewer years to phase in changes and increases the possibility of a more abrupt adjustment later.

That is why Social Security reform is politically difficult even though the basic financial problem is well understood.

Why Congress is under pressure now

Social Security’s financing problems have been known for decades, but lawmakers have repeatedly postponed comprehensive reform.

The urgency is increasing because the projected depletion date is approaching.

The Social Security Administration says that once trust fund reserves are depleted, continuing tax revenue would cover only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits unless Congress changes the law.

That gives lawmakers a choice between making gradual changes now or potentially facing much larger adjustments later.

The political stakes are enormous. Social Security provides retirement, survivor and disability benefits to tens of millions of Americans, making changes to the program highly consequential for voters.

What happens next

The bipartisan proposals now before Congress are primarily attempts to create a process for reaching agreement. They do not themselves solve the funding shortfall.

The key question is whether lawmakers can agree on a combination of tax increases, benefit changes or other measures before the trust fund reaches the point where scheduled benefits exceed available revenue.

For retirees and workers, the most important point is that a 22% cut has not been enacted.

It is a projected consequence of the program’s financing shortfall if Congress fails to act.

The longer lawmakers wait, however, the fewer options they may have for introducing changes gradually.

Key Facts

• Projected benefit reduction without congressional action: About 22%
• Projected timing: 2032
• 2026 taxable wage cap: $184,500
• Current employee Social Security tax: 6.2%
• Current employer Social Security tax: 6.2%
• Full retirement age: 67 for people born in 1960 or later
• Major bipartisan proposal: PROMISE Act
• Status: Congress has not enacted a comprehensive Social Security solvency package

Reporting Credit: Social Security Administration, U.S. Senate and Congressional Budget Office, with Journos News independently synthesizing and presenting the verified information on Social Security’s projected financing shortfall and proposed reform options.

The post How to Avoid a Social Security Cut? Lawmakers Are Floating Ideas appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Elon Musk’s high-profile role in President Trump’s administration may be winding down, but the aggressive government overhaul he championed through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is far from over.

From Startup to Government Staple

In less than four months, DOGE has woven itself into the fabric of federal agencies. Musk’s team has placed staff in critical roles, launched efforts to modernize decades-old software systems, and pushed to build a master database of sensitive personal data aimed at speeding up immigration enforcement and cracking down on fraud.

Many DOGE personnel are staying put for the long haul. Some are temporary, limited to 130 days like Musk himself, while others hold renewable one-year contracts or have secured what look like permanent government positions.

A federal employee familiar with the General Services Administration (GSA) told CNN, “There are so many of Elon’s people in already and they are not leaving, so the chaos will continue and nothing will change.”

A Disruptive First 100 Days

DOGE’s impact during Trump’s early months in office has been profound—and controversial. Over 121,000 federal employees were laid off or targeted for layoffs, with thousands more accepting buyouts. Those affected described confusion, forced relocations, and office upheavals. Federal grants and programs were cut drastically, then partially reinstated after court battles.

Despite legal challenges over its sweeping authority, DOGE’s reach has been described as “pervasive.” A senior Justice Department attorney said its mission is “somewhat pervasive, and it’s hard for us to clearly define.”

Can DOGE Sustain Without Musk?

A big question now: will DOGE maintain its momentum without Musk as its public face and protector? Some Cabinet secretaries have already pushed back against what they see as DOGE overstepping its bounds, including State Secretary Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Yet Musk’s departure could also be a blessing in disguise. A senior official told CNN that the “shock and awe” approach Musk brought was necessary initially but created lawsuits and political headaches. Now, without the limelight, DOGE can focus on “action” rather than “authority and access.”

Georgia Representative Rich McCormick expects DOGE’s work to continue, though “it won’t be quite so publicized.”

Musk’s Unique Role and Vision

From the beginning, DOGE was Musk’s idea. He worked out of a secured office near the White House, sometimes sleeping there and even in the Lincoln Bedroom at Trump’s request. His focus ranged from well-researched audits to issues flagged on social media.

True to Silicon Valley style, Musk’s team moved fast, breaking norms and taking on a variety of roles across agencies—often juggling multiple jobs with different security badges and email accounts.

But as Musk’s own business struggles deepened, his influence in Washington waned. He told investors in April he would step back to focus on Tesla, though he plans to remain involved in government work part-time. His future role advising Trump remains unclear.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said, “The mission of DOGE—to cut waste, fraud, and abuse—will surely continue. DOGE employees who onboarded at their respective agencies will keep working with President Trump’s cabinet to make our government more efficient.”

Congressional supporters echo that sentiment. GOP Rep. Aaron Bean called Musk the “rocket” that launched DOGE but said the mission would continue after the booster “separates.” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole also said DOGE’s work is “useful” and likely to become institutionalized during Trump’s term.

DOGE Deeply Embedded Across Agencies

The Trump administration has been tight-lipped about DOGE’s size but confirms it is “everywhere” with a “substantial” workforce. Musk said DOGE started with about 100 staffers, aiming for 200.

Many have transitioned into formal government roles, often holding senior leadership positions in major agencies like the Social Security Administration (SSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Executives from Musk’s companies—Tesla, SpaceX, The Boring Company, xAI, and X—now control critical government “nerve centers,” reshaping entitlement programs, revenue collection, and assistance distribution.

They’ve systematically sidelined or ousted top officials in key agencies, replacing them with DOGE-aligned staff who have gained unprecedented access to secure data systems, though some legal challenges have blocked access in places.

While some career officials have grown wary, others have welcomed the removal of barriers to detecting fraud and waste. Gene Dodaro, head of the Government Accountability Office, acknowledged some benefits, saying, “They’ve opened up some data barriers preventing detection of improper payments.”

Health startup founder Sam Corcos, working with Treasury’s DOGE team, praised the talent and cooperation he’s seen, calling career staff “super cooperative.”

Workforce Cuts Spark Distrust

Still, DOGE’s role in massive federal layoffs has caused deep distrust among remaining employees. The cuts and buyouts are just the first phase; agencies have submitted detailed plans for further large-scale reductions set for implementation by September 2025.

These plans are under legal scrutiny, with the Trump administration seeking Supreme Court intervention to allow mass firings and reorganizations.

A current Department of Education employee described a tense atmosphere between DOGE and other staff, saying DOGE workers “do stuff and then inform us later” or the news breaks it. Collaboration is minimal; DOGE staff reportedly keep to themselves, locking their doors and ignoring colleagues.

The Social Security Takeover

At the Social Security Administration—the largest federal program handling sensitive personal data—DOGE has taken control. Eleven DOGE staffers, many with ties to Musk, are embedded in the agency, including key executives like CIO Scott Coulter, who came from Musk’s tech circles.

DOGE is driving three major projects:

• The “Are You Alive?” initiative, ensuring records reflect who is living or deceased to stop improper payments.
• The Death Data Clean Up Project, updating deceased individuals’ records.
• The Fraud Detection Project, rooting out fraudulent changes in payments and claims.

Though legal battles block some data access, the Trump administration argues these efforts are vital to modernizing the government and cutting fraud.

DOGE’s control has altered agency culture, with staff working in small, secretive teams and limiting wider involvement.

Political Backlash and the Musk Factor

From the start, Democrats made Musk a prime target for criticism, blaming him for government chaos and cuts. Progressive groups plastered posters calling him a thief, and lawmakers introduced bills to block DOGE’s power.

As Musk’s public role diminishes, Democrats are shifting focus to DOGE’s policies themselves—especially layoffs and cuts to research grants—and how these disrupt people’s lives.

Sydney Register, press secretary for a progressive group, said, “The ‘Musk stealing from you’ message worked well. But beyond that, we need to highlight the havoc his fake efficiency work is causing.”

Some Democrats, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, believe Musk’s retreat is just a technicality and his influence remains strong. Others hope his exit might slow DOGE’s momentum.

Rep. Pat Ryan expressed cautious optimism, saying, “Hopefully with Musk gone we can fight back harder on that.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Pete Aguilar noted the bigger picture: “The public understands what Elon Musk was trying to do for Donald Trump. That work will continue—whether Musk is the puppet master or not.”

Source: CNN – As Musk steps back, DOGE moves forward with more cuts, sweeping agency changes

The post Elon Musk Steps Back, But Government’s Efficiency Team Keeps Moving Forward appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.