topic Re: Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits... in Social Security

Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits...

DrBBLS — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 04:32:51 GMT

Everyone might want to read this recent editorial from MarketWatch and Morningstar here - - https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/2026031757/social-security-benefit-cuts-are-coming-and-they-will-hit-current-retirees-hard. A 1960 Supreme Court ruling in Fleming vs. Nestor established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is NOT a contractual right. The Court based its decision on section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER", which specifically states, "The right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." While some might think that this reservation is unconstitutional, the above Supreme Court ruling settled this issue in Fleming vs. Nestor. Denying or wholly removing benefits is neither unconstitutional nor an entitlement. The Supreme Court ruling here - https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

While it's true, according to the SSA Trust Fund, that the fund will be depleted by 2033, which is only 7 years away, Congress has no contractual obligation to continue benefits or fund the trust based on Fleming vs. Nestor. The entire Trust Fund board is made up of only Trump appointees with both public trustee spots vacant, none of which bodes well for the future of social security benefits.

Therefore, anyone who thinks, hopes or wishes that under any administration our Social Security benefits are safe is sadly mistaken. More on the current Social Security Trust Fund here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

IMHO, the above is something that AARP might consider broadcasting far and wide prior to the mid-term elections because, in the end, it's up to voters to elect a Congress that will honor its obligations and fiduciary responsibility to all who work and have worked in the U.S. and were forced to pay for the promise of future Social Security benefits. Concomitant to notifying the American public of the above, an accompanying option is for AARP to use its considerable political clout and formally challenge Fleming vs. Nestor though judicial processes. Just sayin...

Re: Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits...

DanielH900075 — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 17:35:28 GMT

Your link to the Morningstar article doesn't work.

Re: Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits...

SereneSeagull — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 18:18:57 GMT

Why are you clicking on the link of someone you don’t know? I would suggest not doing that. 👍😊

Re: Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits...

GailL1 — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 16:09:25 GMT

I don’t know why it was taken down but there is another one up again today - supplied by MarketWatch (paid subscription) posted by the Dow Jones Market Wire - these are mostly articles int advertising niche for investing - Scare the beneficiaries into upping their investing to protect from any future benefit reductions if Congress does not act.

It won’t be those that have other investments that hurt the most if Congress does not act - it will be those who have little to no other retirement savings and boy, do we have a lot of those.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260321158/social-security-benefit-cuts-are-coming-and-they-will-hit-current-retirees-hard

Now to the OP’s major point - can Social Security benefits be cut when the Trust Fund runs out of reserve funds - yes, by law they can be and we are already paying out more than we are taking in - look at the balance sheets for the last few years.

SSA.gov - Trust Fund Data 1957 - 2024

Hopefully the 2025 data will be available next month.

Will Congress act? Does it matter if they do or don’t? Some people think that it will be “saved” at the last minute - What I think makes little difference but I think it might be too late at that point cause there will also be other areas that are also in financial problems. We are broke and the thought that the reserve that the SS Trust Funds have are invested in US special Treasures, do not console me.

How about you ?

Re: Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits...

croced — Sat, 16 May 2026 16:20:31 GMT

This is an answer to what AARP's statements on MSN about you should take Social Security as late in life as possible.

I don’t get AARP’s claim that we need to work longer to soften the blow of big Social Security cuts. I’m 72, retired, and planned my savings with Social Security in mind. A 25–35% cut would hit hard, especially since I’ve already trimmed expenses to stretch my money. I’d rather see AARP fight to prevent any cuts to Social Security and push Congress to act sooner instead of waiting until the last minute to fix this broken benefit we were all taxed to fund. Believing that Congress will act within 6 years to prevent cuts is useless. Congress acts when it's too late. For example, the budget is no surprise; it comes up every year, but we all have to suffer the shutdowns because Congress either did not get around to the budget or is too busy with its infighting to prevent these shutdowns.

Re: Regarding Congressional obligations to pay social security benefits...

GailL1 — Sat, 16 May 2026 19:24:51 GMT

@croced

I agree that AARP should put their efforts in getting the legislators to act but since at least 2010, EVERY YEAR, the Social Security Trustee Report has ended with the warning that legislators should act, with the note that there are many things that can be done to shore up the program by increasing revenues or decreasing benefits, most likely a bit of both, AND with the warning that acting sooner rather than later would help everybody get a longer period to adjust to whatever is the fix - and of course this would be mostly for those in the 50 or lower age-range just like it was done before by Reagan and O’Neill in the 80’s. .

WELL, there was NO “SOONER” action to fix even after several Presidential commissions were set up (by different party Presidents) and they came back with suggestion - nothing happened - just more bickering and party squabbles.

There was even a law proposal put forth to force them to act - and of course, that didn’t pass either.

NOW, We are in the “LATER” so all I can say is we deserve what we get whatever the action has to be - Many of the legislators that have been around since God created dirt are now leaving (or they are dying) and we are gonna be getting a younger breed of legislator - and they might have different views on how the system gets fixed.

So, yeah, I think we are up the creek without a paddle now - and you know what creek that is - right? We cannot balance the needs of the many against the needs of the whole country for growth to keep the economy moving and I am concerned that we as a country have so much debt that the solution is gonna be a hard one.

Like you, hopefully, I am ready for whatever is to come - whatever might come.