Despite their significant policy differences, when it comes to Social Security both leading presidential candidates see eye to eye. Trump and Biden have both vowed not to cut Social Security. While these pledges may resonate with politically powerful voters, a “do-nothing” approach to Social Security that avoids necessary structural reforms and instead promises to preserve benefits at current levels, comes at a high cost for younger generations.

Since the House Budget Committee passed the Fiscal Commission Act out of committee in January, several critics have come out of the woodwork to argue against the bill. Criticism ranges from calling the commission process undemocratic, to claiming that Social Security and Medicare (or at least Part A) don’t contribute to the debt, to worrying about tax increases that might get passed under false pretenses, to calling the commission a death panel.

Below I list prominent critiques and their main charges, and defuse each argument in turn:

When it comes to government provision of retirement benefits, differences abound. Comparing the US Social Security program to the UK state pension illustrates a stark contrast. While both countries promise an old‐age safety net, the US Social Security benefit for the highest‐income earners looks more like a golden parachute than what President Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to as “some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family … against poverty‐ridden old age.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, providing 11‐year fiscal projections for 2024 to 2034.