Bipartisan Bill Seeks Social Security Board Solvency Plan
Bipartisan legislation introduced in Congress aims to task the Social Security Advisory Board with creating a legislative framework to extend the program’s solvency. The bill was introduced by Senators Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Dick Durbin, and Tim Kaine. Under the proposed law, if the advisory board fails to submit a proposal, the leaders of the majority parties in both the House and Senate would be required to introduce a base bill themselves.
Creating a path for legislation
The legislation outlines an alternative mechanism for ensuring solvency. Any bipartisan pair of members from either chamber may introduce a bill to guarantee at least 50 years of funding for Social Security. Additionally, the new law would establish a mandatory process for reviewing the program’s long-term financial health every decade.
Current projections show the Social Security trust funds will be depleted by 2032. According to the most recent report from the Social Security Administration, benefits would need to be reduced by 22% after that year if no action is taken. Experts generally agree that the most likely solution to these financial gaps requires a mix of tax increases and benefit reductions, though implementing such changes remains politically difficult.
Jeffrey Brown, a professor of business at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a former SSAB member, noted the difficulty of the task. “There’s no good way out of this that doesn’t impose real costs on real people, and that is politically difficult,” Brown said. “No one’s ever gotten elected to Congress by saying, ‘I’m going to cut benefits and raise your taxes.’” The bill’s reliance on the advisory board for this heavy lifting represents a significant departure from how the agency has typically operated.
Related: Solving the most common problems in the trading business
Historically, the Social Security Advisory Board has served primarily as an oversight body to advise government officials on administration rather than policy creation. Its website describes the organization as a group that “provides advice and recommendations to the President, Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security on matters related to the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income programs and policies.” However, they have never been tasked with proposing major legislative reforms.
The board’s current state
Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, supports the legislation as a way to force discussion but questions the choice of the advisory board as the vehicle. “I support the bill to get reform discussions moving, but I do think that using the SSAB is inferior to appointing a new expert panel to propose Social Security solutions,” Biggs said. He noted that when he was nominated for the board several years ago, he emphasized during his confirmation hearing that the board does not promote reforms.
The board consists of up to seven members. The president appoints three, while the Senate and House each select two. Terms last six years, though they begin immediately upon the expiry of a previous member’s term rather than confirmation. Currently, the agency has four members. All three presidential slots are vacant, although that is enough to form a quorum. Biggs was nominated by President Biden in 2024 but was not confirmed. He was one of several nominees the Senate refused to confirm despite hosting a hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance in 2024. President Trump designated a new chair, Amy Shuart, in November 2025 but has not nominated any presidential appointees.
Despite the board’s current composition, relying on the agency for such a massive undertaking seems like a stretch. Brown expressed concern that the board’s limited staff and primary focus on administration make it a difficult fit for the job. Even if the board or a separate commission drafts a bill, Congress retains the final authority. “There’s no getting around that members of the House and Senate are going to have to vote” on some legislation, Brown said. They must consider the long-term effects of their decisions, including the potential impact on Senate ethics and the overall stability of the program.
