📋 AARP Ends Social Security Anniversary With Town Hall (AARP Article & Video/advocacy)

[Winter2025VA]

FROM THE ARTICLE.

CEO, members call on Congress to protect and strengthen Social Security for today’s beneficiaries and generations to come.

By Deirdre van Dyk, AARP. Published September 26, 2025.

To mark this year’s 90th anniversary of Social Security, AARP has held hundreds of events and activities around the country and engaged millions of older Americans.

In Maine, AARP volunteers joined Gov. Janet Mills as she signed a proclamation honoring Social Security. In Iowa, they offered games and giveaways at the state fair to educate their neighbors about the importance of Social Security. In Wisconsin, they celebrated with baseball fans, handing out slices of birthday cake at a minor-league game.

USE ARTICLE BELOW TO READ THE ARTICLE.

https://www.aarp.org/advocacy/ssa-90th-anniversary-town-hall/

[GailL1]

A TWO PART POST since it is long but important, I think.

I think everybody pretty much agrees on why Social Security is so important and that we have paid into it for a return.  

We haven’t really ever been told how much we can get as a return - the formula depends on the current law.  

So we get a benefit - GREAT.  Now how much should that benefit be?  Right now those that have paid in less based on their earnings actually get more based on the formula - meaning a higher % of their average salary is replaced by their SS benefit than those who have paid in more - that’s the way the program works now.

Now how should the program be fixed to last for the long term?  That’s where the rubber meets the road, so to speak and where the real brouhaha begins.  The Trust Fund needs money - money can come in (2) different ways or a bit of each.

a reduction in benefits  or an increase in revenues.  Then there are different ways to achieve either of those methods - a reduction in benefits or an increase in revenues or a bit of both.

Those that are getting benefits now or are very close to it have a date when this needs to be resolved or our benefits are gonna be reduced - that the law.  When the  Trust Fund reaches a point of  insolvency then only a portion of the benefit owed to all beneficiaries can be paid.’

Insolvency means that the trust fund is unable to pay benefits in full and on time. It does not mean that Social Security will be completely eliminated and unable to pay any benefits.” But future benefits could only be paid from taxes collected, which would cover roughly 80% of benefits. While beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits, the federal Anti-deficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds. Since current contributions wouldn't meet the full obligations, recipients might receive timely but reduced payments or be paid in full but on a delayed schedule.

Since 2021, we have been paying benefits at the 100% rate but yet yearly income or revenues coming into the Trust Funds have NOT been enough to cover the payments to beneficiaries - Thus each year, we are drawing down the reserve funds that we have built up until now.  This reduction in Trust Fund reserves also reduces the amount that we are getting in interest paid by the government on these special treasuries.  

We all have a stake in this - ALL current beneficiaries, All those who are close to drawing a benefit, ALL those who are still working and paying into the Social Security system, even those who are just now starting their working careers.  

So we need to get past discussing the problem over and over - that seems to be the easiest thing to do.  We need to get past the discussion of people wanting more.  We need to get past the discussion of who deserves it.  We need to get past the discussion of who will pay for the fix to the system - cause we all have a part in the outcome.  

Since Employers are also part of this discussion, since they pay a matched contribution, we will need to also look at whatever changes are made and how it affects their bottom line and our economy as a whole.  The Social Security Trustees call this the “societal influence”  meaning that employer will look at how much they have to spend on employees and structure their payrolls accordingly.  That may mean less employment or restructuring their business for less employees and more consultant types who are paid as self-employed individuals.  Or figuring out how to legally pay for a job but in something other than wages, i.e. stock options.

We are all gonna see whatever we do in a light that is our own.  Those that get a smaller benefit for whatever reason will see things in their own way.  Those that get a larger benefit for whatever reason will also see things in their own way.  Those that are close to drawing their benefits will be in whichever camp.  Those who are still working, or have just began their careers and have years to go before even thinking about getting a benefit will see things in a completely different light.   

Next Part 2 

[GailL1]

PART 2 of my post

We can drastically change the program or we can work with the system we have now and then learn our lesson and live within whatever confines that brings or adjust the system accordingly.

But we aren’t gonna get anywhere until Congress begins their discussions in earnest - and I do not believe that it can be fixed without a large piece of legislation covering a lot of the bases and yes, for some that will mean a reduction in benefits and for others paying in more towards revenues.  

So I leave you with some questions to ponder - 

1.  Will it be fine for those with a higher benefit to get less of a benefit - perhaps by adding more bend points to the benefits formula?

2.  Will it be fine to have those who have a higher income to pay in more into the SS system.  They will get a benefit that will probably be less than the current formula - again with added bend points in the benefits formula.

3.  Will it be fine for those who are going to have to pay in more, whether by income or by a change in the contribution formula to have a say in where some of their contributions go for earnings?

4.  Will it be fine if your kids/grandkids have to pay in a larger % of their earnings to help in this balancing issue?

5.  Will it be fine if those just entering the work force or who are only in their early 20’s / 30’s to have a higher retirement age than 67 where it stand now?  It will take many years to get to the higher age - took 40 years to get from 65 to 67 as it is now - wll almost now - 66 + some months

6.  Are there any benefits given now for specific reasons questionable as to their adequacy/ fairness / need?  LIKE:  

• I question why a person can file for EARLY retirement benefits and still get full dependent auxiliary benefits if they have children under the age of 18 even if the benefit is limited by the family maximum.
• I question why we have a DIVORCED spousal benefit that covers more than 1 or 2 spouses- and is not limited by a family maximum.  

Off my soapbox now -