Harris asserted that she “will not let [Donald] Trump and his allies take away the Social Security and Medicare benefits that seniors have earned.” However, her assertions face several inconvenient realities.
First, under existing laws and Senate procedures, Trump and congressional Republicans cannot alter Social Security on a purely party-line basis. Yet, Harris’ proposals to weaken the Senate filibuster could open the door for them to do so.
Those less familiar with Senate rules might assume that Congress could alter Social Security through budget reconciliation—a process that enables certain fiscal measures to bypass the Senate’s typical 60-vote supermajority requirement.
However, the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” established in 1985, explicitly prevents changes to Social Security through reconciliation. Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act, known as the “Byrd rule,” includes six criteria for determining whether provisions are “extraneous” to reconciliation. The sixth criterion specifies that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill…that includes recommendations affecting the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under Title II of the Social Security Act.”
While lawmakers have used reconciliation to adjust other Social Security Act programs—such as welfare reform in 1996 and various changes to Medicare and Medicaid—any provision affecting Social Security’s retirement or disability programs would be struck down as “extraneous,” unless 60 senators vote to waive a point of order.
This restriction suggests that Trump’s proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits is unlikely to pass without substantial Democratic support. It also means that warnings that Trump’s agenda could undermine Social Security’s solvency hold less weight, as his most impactful proposal (abolishing taxes on Social Security benefits) has a slim chance of enactment. In an election year, it’s worth noting: under current law, neither party can unilaterally change Social Security.
Only Democrats seem eager to change Senate rules to allow legislation to pass along party lines. Harris recently backed a filibuster “exception” to pass a law codifying Roe v. Wade, after previously supporting similar exceptions for voting rights and the Green New Deal. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., went even further, suggesting the Senate should “change the [filibuster] rule” that has obstructed progress on many fronts.
If Democrats control the Senate next year, the filibuster could quickly become riddled with exceptions for progressive priorities. Eliminating the filibuster would enable lawmakers to bypass or repeal current restrictions with just 51 votes, allowing them to alter Social Security along party lines.
This presents an irony in Harris’ statement that “with Trump back in the White House, there would be no guardrails stopping Trump and his allies from cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits [and] raising their eligibility ages.” It’s not Trump but Harris and her allies who want to remove the most significant barrier to partisan changes in Social Security.
Democrats want Harris to emphasize entitlement programs, with one unnamed Democratic official recently telling Politico that “she should be coming in on Medicare and Social Security like non-f-cking-stop.”
But Harris’ push for filibuster reform raises many questions about the impact on programs she claims to want to protect. Does she understand how the Senate she presides over as vice president currently functions, such that Republicans cannot unilaterally alter Social Security? In calling for changes to the filibuster, does she believe her own warnings about the “threat” Republicans supposedly pose to Social Security? Or is she prepared to jeopardize the program for short-term political gain?
Despite Harris’ references to “earned benefits,” Medicare and Social Security generally pay out more to beneficiaries than they contribute in taxes. Both programs require substantial reforms, and the “Byrd rule” prohibition on changing Social Security via reconciliation is designed to encourage bipartisan cooperation. Harris’ approach, which departs from traditional Senate norms, increases the risk of a fiscal crisis that could negatively impact current and future seniors.
