Social Security is on the ballot in the midterm elections

By Ron Mastrogiovani and Michael R. Daley

Voters in the midterm elections will select 33 senators whose six-year terms will take them through to 2032 – the point at which, if no updates are made to the program, Social Security benefits could be cut by 22%.

These new lawmakers are on the hook for the program’s future, and voters know this. It should come as no surprise that Social Security solvency is a major midterm issue.

Voters have good reason to want action well before the trust fund solvency deadline. The longer the delay, the more expensive it will be to resolve.

Peter G. Peterson Foundation research provides sobering context: Eliminating the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes would have addressed 99% of the funding gap if it had been put in place in 2010, compared with just 48% if it had been enacted in 2025. Kicking the can down the road will require greater tax increases or benefit changes to balance Social Security’s books.

Voters want lawmakers to take steps to protect Social Security. A Peterson Foundation poll shows 97% of voters said candidates should explain their plans to prevent automatic Social Security benefit cuts. Voters of all stripes (81% of Democrats, 75% of independents and 74% of Republicans) believe that candidates “definitely” should address the issue.

For 8 out of 10 voters in battleground states, Social Security will be a deciding factor in how they cast their ballots. Democrats and Republicans are listening. They have different approaches to addressing the program’s solvency and heading off cuts.

Democrats have been discussing raising or eliminating the $184,000 earnings cap for Social Security contributions. Republicans oppose higher taxes and promise to protect benefits, with limited detail on how they would address solvency.

Bipartisan groups are focused on Social Security, but we are far from a consensus in Washington. One area where we anticipate agreement has already been proposed by the Social Security Administration trustees - merging the Social Security Trust Fund and the Disability Trust Fund. With the latter well funded, the combination would push the current solvency deadline out by two years (until 2034) and reduce potential benefit cuts to 17%.

Projections don’t look good

This is still a big number – not one that will sit well with voters. As we outlined in our July 2026 white paper, Social Security Solvency & Retirement Planning, we project that a 17% reduction in benefits beginning in 2034 would cost a 54-year-old couple receiving average benefits from $161,000 to $195,000 in lifetime Social Security income. For a high-income couple receiving maximum benefits, the loss would be between $425,000 and $509,000.

The pressure on legislators will continue to grow, along with questions for advisors on what the potential for cuts will mean for retirement plans.

Fixing Social Security’s solvency shortfall will require hard decisions about both trust-fund revenue and benefits. American Academy of Actuaries data from 2025 underscores why there’s no simple fix. It showed that delaying Full Retirement Age by one year would address only 15% of the funding shortfall, and using a different metric for cost of living adjustments (with a 0.5% lower annual rate) would potentially tackle another 28% of the funding needs. The impact of changes to the Social Security contribution cap will vary considerably depending on whether it is eliminated or raised by different amounts.

Any changes to Social Security will be unpopular. Keeping the current promised monthly benefits will cost money, and retired Americans are counting on them and building them into retirement plans. Higher contributions preretirement or changes to benefits will need to be planned for. A one-year change in FRA would reduce lifetime benefits for an average couple by $72,000 and a wealthy couple by $253,000.

The midterm ballot box will be one way for Americans to start to select candidates they believe will most likely protect Social Security and prevent cuts to the program. The pressure on lawmakers to address this issue is likely to rise with every subsequent election in the run up to 2032. Social Security is known as the third rail of politics for a reason.

Advisors and financial professionals will also be at the sharp end of the spear as clients seek advice and guidance on planning for Social Security’s funding uncertainty.

There will be a fix – but at what cost?

We believe there will be a solvency fix, potentially at the last minute. But it should be clear by now that a fix does not mean clients should assume it will cost them nothing. The right thing to do is to start talking to clients about a range of potential scenarios and impacts, and plan accordingly. Reflecting this, we are building into our planning tools the option to calculate the impact of a range of Social Security scenarios on benefits and the additional savings needed to cover the income loss.

Advisors can run the numbers for a range of scenarios, set aside additional funds to address the potential for lower lifetime Social Security benefits, and consider additional lifetime income streams to make up for anticipated shortfalls.

We believe Social Security will remain a foundational source of income in retirement. The question is not whether the program will exist, but what the impact will be on retirement plans after changes are made to fund it.

© Entire contents copyright 2026 by InsuranceNewsNet.com Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reprinted without the expressed written consent from InsuranceNewsNet.com.

Ron Mastrogiovani is CEO of HealthView Services. Contact him at ron.mastrogiovani@innfeedback.com.

Michael R. Daley is director of research and marketing, HealthView Services. Contact him at michael.daley@innfeedback.com.