President Donald Trump's defeat in the 2026 midterm elections gives Democrats an opportunity to hold the Republican leader accountable in a number of ways. Yet according to a recent report, Democrats may also be able to work with Trump on an issue that impacts millions of people's economic futures — the impending insolvency of Social Security.
"Social Security is heading toward insolvency in 2032, and Democrats may take a shot at legislation that would stave off the automatic benefit cuts that would bring," wrote The Wall Street Journal's Richard Rubin and Lindsay Wise on Wednesday. "Many of them favor raising the earnings cap, now $184,500, where payroll taxes stop. Jeffries has talked about expanding the low-income housing tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit."
They added, "With Senate control, Democrats will be able to block Trump’s judicial and executive branch nominees, including any Supreme Court picks. Republicans will likely push through as many confirmations as possible before they lose power January 3rd. But once vacancies emerge, the partisan divide will either mean acting officials in key administration positions or compromise nominees who can satisfy Democrats. There are potential areas of compromise between Trump and Democrats, including support for farmers, a tax credit for film production and an overhaul of permitting rules for major projects.”
Speaking exclusively to AlterNet, former President Joe Biden's Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley said that he did not entirely agree with the Journal's take on the issue.
"I believe that Social Security is the biggest and easiest, and politically the easiest, affordability win that the new Democratic supermajority in the House could pass," O'Malley told AlterNet. "To claim that Social Security is going totally insolvent is just not true. But in order to guarantee its ability to pay 100% of benefits, we must demand that the super wealthy pay the same Social Security tax rate on their earnings that the rest of us do. And if we do that, we can not only increase benefits to address the affordability issues faced by 71 million beneficiaries, but we can do so in a way that doesn’t add a penny to the national debt or deficit."
AlterNet then asked O'Malley if he supports the four measures mentioned by the Journal: raising the earnings cap, expanding low-income housing tax credits, expanding earned income tax credits and expanding child tax credits
"Those other three things are all fine and good, but none of them would have the impact on as many Americans as increasing Social Security benefits by demanding that the super wealthy pay their fair share, namely the same tax rate the rest of us pay on our earnings," O'Malley told AlterNet. "So all of those other three things are fine, and they’re good things, and they should do them. But there is nothing that would be as popularly supported and applauded, and needed as broadly by as many Americans, as the very straightforward and simple fix of increasing benefits by requiring that the wealthy pay their fair share."
