{"id":43498,"date":"2025-07-08T09:57:03","date_gmt":"2025-07-08T09:57:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/isafespend.com\/?p=43498"},"modified":"2025-07-08T09:57:04","modified_gmt":"2025-07-08T09:57:04","slug":"why-the-ssas-big-beautiful-bill-statement-jeopardizes-the-agencys-trust","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/isafespend.com\/?p=43498","title":{"rendered":"Why The SSA’s Big Beautiful Bill Statement Jeopardizes The Agency’s Trust"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Updated, July 7, 2025: This post has been adjusted to correct the spelling of New York Times reporter Tara Siegel Bernard\u2019s name and the KFF think tank. It has been updated to cite the Quinnipiac University National Poll of registered voters.<\/em><\/p>\n

On July 3rd, just before fireworks lit up the skies, a quieter explosion took place in the inboxes of Social Security stakeholders, observers, and experts across the country. See New York Times\u2019 Tara Siegel Bernard\u2019s coverage.<\/p>\n

It was a Social Security blog — oddly celebratory, unusually partisan and containing inaccurate statements — from the brand-new Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Frank Bisignano. Titled \u201cSocial Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors,\u201d the statement praised the so-called \u201cOne Big, Beautiful Bill,\u201d President Trump\u2019s signature 2025\u20132026 budget bill, which happens to be one of the most unpopular pieces of recent legislation: only 27% of registered voters support the bill; 53% oppose it according to Quinnipiac University National Polling.<\/p>\n

The SSA\u2019s Big Beautiful Bill Statement Is Inaccurate<\/h2>\n

But there\u2019s a problem: The bill doesn\u2019t do anything<\/em> directly to Social Security and the blog said it did, claiming \u201cThe new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples.\u201d That statement is inaccurate. And, indirectly, the bill is poised to hurt seniors through Social Security and Medicare cuts.<\/p>\n

To be sure, the legislation includes a more generous standard deduction for middle- and upper-class older adults but it didn\u2019t \u2013 and couldn\u2019t \u2013 touch Social Security\u2019s taxes on income. That\u2019s because under the Senate\u2019s Byrd Rule, reconciliation bills can\u2019t include provisions that don\u2019t directly impact the federal budget. A Social Security commissioner should know that.<\/p>\n

The Social Security Administration plays a vital role in the lives of millions, and its leadership must be supported by expert staff and guided by a clear, accurate understanding of the program\u2019s mission and structure.<\/p>\n

However, other trends and policies affecting Social Security suggest the agency is becoming increasingly politicized, which may explain its statement endorsing legislation associated with political divides and unpopular opinions among voters.<\/p>\n

The Social Security Administration’s Shift From Trusted Messenger To Politicized Agency<\/h2>\n

Social Security Was Trusted<\/h3>\n

For 90 years, the SSA has enjoyed a rare status in American government: trusted, efficient, and above the political fray. Checks were mailed on time. Customer service was once rated among the highest in the American Customer Satisfaction Index \u2013 until relentless budget cuts started to degrade it.<\/p>\n

A reason for its record of trust is that traditionally, SSA commissioners have remained neutral on legislation unless it directly affected Social Security\u2019s rules, administration, or benefit structure. Bisignano, a respected former Mastercard executive and Trump appointee to the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, is widely praised for his strong private-sector background in financial systems and digital payments. But with no prior experience in public administration, will he follow the SSA\u2019s unique legacy as a trusted, nonpartisan agency?<\/p>\n

Social Security Employees May Become More Political<\/h3>\n

Economist Kathleen Romig from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities lays out how the Trump administration is politicizing the Social Security Administration in ways that threaten its core mission.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration\u2019s proposal to allow the president to unilaterally reclassify civil servants as \u201cpolicy-influencing,” strips them of traditional job protections and undermines the expectation of their political neutrality. The change would enable the administration to fire, demote, or reduce the pay of thousands of federal employees without due process, regardless of performance. Critics warn this would lead to unprecedented politicization of the U.S. civil service.<\/p>\n

To punctuate the trend of politicization, Romig points out that in 2024 the Social Security Administration had roughly one political appointee for every 3000 civil servants. The proposed Trump rule would change that ratio to 1 in every 5 civil servant staff, which is a 500-times increase in political appointment saturation.<\/p>\n

And as the political concentration of Social Security employees increases, the number of experienced civil servants assisting Social Security beneficiaries falls: SSA\u2019s operating budget fell by 13% from 2010 to 2023, adjusted for inflation, while the number of beneficiaries grew by 21% according to Elder Law Clinic.<\/p>\n

Further politicizing the Social Security Administration, the agency has ended its cooperative agreements with the Retirement and Disability Research Consortium, disrupting its longstanding tradition of supporting impartial research and analysis \u2013 cutting funding for six universities (including my institution): University of Wisconsin, Boston College, NBER, University of Maryland, University of Michigan, and CUNY and The New School.<\/p>\n

Politicizing Social Security threatens not only SSA\u2019s effectiveness but also the public\u2019s trust. There is evidence that fear of DOGE\u2019s control of Social Security caused people to claim their benefits early thus reducing their lifetime benefits.<\/p>\n

The Big Beautiful Bill Accelerates Social Security Insolvency From 2033 to 2032<\/h2>\n

The most recent 2025 Social Security Trustees Report forecasted a 23% benefit cut if no new revenue is added by 2033 \u2013 just eight years from now. But the recent partisan and unpopular bill (no Democrat voted for it) will accelerate insolvency to 2032, seven years from now.<\/p>\n

Without the bill, the taxation of benefits would have added $140 billion to the Social Security and Medicare Trust fund by 2027, because the first Trump 2017 tax cuts would have expired and higher-income seniors would have paid higher Social Security benefit taxes according to the conservative think tank, Committee for A Responsible Federal Budget.<\/p>\n

The year 2032 is not a distant cliff\u2014it\u2019s a steep drop for current and future Social Security beneficiaries who are already under strain.<\/p>\n

Retirement Inequality Is Stark And Social Security Is In Trouble: No Time To Politicize It<\/h2>\n

Social Security is absolutely essential. It currently supports 73.6 million Americans, including retirees, disabled workers, and survivors. For over half of older beneficiaries, it supplies more than half of their income. For one in four, it is nearly their only income. Yet the average benefit is just $1,976 per month, barely above the poverty line. A 23% cut would be a humanitarian disaster.<\/p>\n

As my colleague, Drystan Phillips, of the Retirement Equity Lab at The New School documents, America\u2019s retirement system has been unraveling for 40 years. Traditional pensions have disappeared. Savings have stalled. Long-term care is unaffordable. The experiment in 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans has largely failed to improve people\u2019s retirement security.<\/p>\n

The New School\u2019s report shows:<\/p>\n