The midterm elections are about more than just the next two years of congressional control; they will determine the first 33 senators elected to serve through 2032 when, if nothing is done, Social Security recipients face the prospect of a 22% cut in benefits.
These lawmakers will be among those directly responsible for addressing the program’s future, and it should be no surprise that Social Security is a significant issue on the minds of voters, especially those in or approaching retirement.
Although Congress has until 2032 to act before potential reductions take effect, there is good reason for voters to want action well before that deadline (a goal claimed by both major parties). Taking steps to address the trust fund shortfall sooner rather than later is consequential because the longer the delay, the greater the cost to resolve it.
Peter G. Peterson Foundation research highlights the challenge: eliminating the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes would have addressed 99% of the funding gap had it been enacted in 2010, compared to just 48% if it had been enacted in 2025i. Inaction over the next six years will translate into higher tax increases and/or more significant changes to benefits to balance the books.
Voters are signaling that they want lawmakers to act. In a poll also conducted by the Peterson Foundation, 97% of voters said candidates should explain their plans to prevent automatic Social Security benefit cuts. These findings cross party lines: 81% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 74% of Republicans agree that candidates “definitely” should address the issueii.
Furthermore, eight-of-ten polled in key battleground states reported that Social Security will be a deciding factor when they cast their ballot. The message is clear: Social Security is top of mind for America voters.
Statements from Democrats and Republicans underscore different approaches to potential solutions. Democrats emphasize increasing revenue to maintain benefits. This includes raising or eliminating the cap on earnings subject to Social Security payroll taxes. In many cases, Republicans make the case against higher taxes and cuts to benefits, while providing limited detail on how the math will work.
Bipartisan groups are considering this issue, but with a short runway to fix funding, we are far from a consensus in Washington. With the prospect of significant cuts to benefits on the horizon, lawmakers will need to weigh the trade-offs among taxes, benefits, and the long-term financial stability of the program.
One step outlined by the Social Security Administration trustees in their most recent report is likely to get support from both sides of the aisle – merging the Social Security Trust Fund and the Disability Trust Fund, which remains well-funded. This would push the solvency deadline out by two years (until 2034) and reduce the shortfall and potential benefits cut to 17%.
In a July 2026 HealthView Services white paper, Social Security Solvency & Retirement Planning, we estimated that a 17% reduction in benefits beginning in 2034 could cost a hypothetical 54-year-old couple receiving average benefits $161,000 to $195,000 in lifetime retirement income. For a couple eligible for maximum benefits, the estimated loss rises to between $425,000 and $509,000.
With the risk of lower benefits already motivating voters, it is reasonable to believe that lawmakers will take
necessary steps to fund the program – since Social Security is not simply a concern for people already receiving
checks. Working Americans are paying into a system they expect to support them in retirement, and younger
generations have decades of contributions ahead of them.
The pressure on legislators will continue to grow. A combination of solutions may be required on the revenue and
benefits side of the equation. The American Academy of Actuaries showed that delaying Full Retirement Age by
one year would address only 15% of the funding shortfall, and using a different metric for COLAs with a lower
interest rate would potentially tackle another 28% of the funding needs – based on 2025 dataiii.
None of the steps required to continue paying promised benefits will be easy or universally popular. All will come
with a cost for Americans that ultimately will be paid when working, or through lower lifetime benefits. Our
recent report shows that a one-year change in FRA would, for example, reduce lifetime benefits for an average
couple by $72,000 and a wealthy couple by $253,000.
The 2026 midterms will be an important first step in choosing officials who will have the job of making hard
decisions that will shape Social Security’s future. The senators elected this November will be among those on the
hook to figure out a solution. Upcoming House, Senate, and Presidential elections will increasingly be shaped by
pressure from voters to ensure this popular program remains a cornerstone for retirement: Americans are
depending on it.
Financial professionals and their clients should take the opportunity to have conversations about guaranteed
retirement income. With so much uncertainty, it will be important to look at ways to address the potential for
reductions in benefits to provide greater peace of mind when it comes to maintaining a desired standard of living
in retirement.
About HealthView Services
HealthView Services provides Social Security, retirement healthcare, long-term care, retirement income, and
related planning tools and data to leading institutions and advisors in the financial services industry. The firm’s
White Papers provide context and perspective on key retirement-planning issues.
i https://www.pgpf.org/article/lawmakers-are-running-out-of-time-to-fix-social-security/
ii https://www.pgpf.org/article/senators-we-elect-in-2026-will-have-to-deal-with-automatic-social-security-cuts/
iii https://actuary.org/socialsecurity/
To contact the author, Michael Daley, please email mdaley@hvsfinancial.com.