In March, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released its fiscal year 2025 budget proposal, which includes significant cuts to Social Security. The committee’s membership comprises roughly 80 percent of all Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as the entirety of House Republican leadership, indicating that the policies outlined in their budget proposal are major priorities for the House Republican caucus.
One policy that has continually been included in RSC budget proposals for years is an increase to Social Security’s full retirement age (FRA), the age at which seniors become eligible to access Social Security retirement benefits without a financial penalty for retiring early. The FRA is 67 under current law, but the RSC plan would push it back to 69, leading to drastic benefit cuts for a large majority of Americans. While raising the FRA is overwhelmingly unpopular among the American people, it has enjoyed support from some far-right groups in Washington, D.C., including the Heritage Foundation, which is spearheading Project 2025.
This is notable since Project 2025’s 900-page Mandate for Leadership fails to propose any solutions for Social Security and says on page 710 that its proposals for the program could not be “covered here in depth.” Notably, that line was co-authored by economist Stephen Moore, who has advocated slashing and privatizing Social Security. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, has also stated that parts of their plan will not be shared with "the left." Last month, his organization called for raising the retirement age; Rachel Greszler authored that analysis and is listed as a Project 2025 contributor.
The RSC’s FY 2025 budget proposal borrows much of its language on Social Security from its FY 2024 counterpart. Specific details on increasing the FRA did not come from this document but rather Roll Call’s reporting on comments made by RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA). He stated that starting with those turning 62 in 2026, the FRA would increase by three months per year until it rises from 67 to 69 by those turning 62 in 2033.
According to Center for American Progress analysis, an FRA of 69 would cut benefits between roughly 12.5 percent and 14.3 percent by full phase-in. A median-wage retiree earning $70,000 in 2022 and turning 62 in 2034 would lose thousands annually due to these changes.
Claiming at age 62 under current law imposes a maximum penalty of up to a reduction of monthly benefits by nearly one-third; increasing FRA to age seventy-nine raises this penalty further cutting benefits by nearly thirteen percent affecting all ages someone might claim social security under new regulations making retirees face annual losses between four thousand dollars upwards towards nine thousand dollars dependent upon when they claimed social security initially considering cost-of-living adjustments inflationary impacts projections median-wage retirees potentially facing cumulative ten-year losses exceeding ninety-nine thousand dollars impacting significantly typical retiree finances particularly low middle-income earners reliant heavily social security primary income source retirement savings gap widening exacerbated lower accessibility account balances varying widely across demographics
The RSC budget proposal does not acknowledge these potential benefit cuts instead promising no support reductions older workers currently retired example page explicitly states opposition delaying reducing existing beneficiaries emphasizing however individuals nearing approaching eligibility shielded future generations bearing brunt increased retirement thresholds affecting seventy-five percent Americans totaling more than two hundred forty-five million population proportion rising overtime
Additionally raising FRA justified accounting life expectancy gains questioned overall longevity flattened post-2010 decreasing significantly recent years particularly disadvantaged populations African Americans consistently experiencing lower life expectancies gaps persisting exacerbating disparities reflecting socio-economic educational inequalities therefore increased thresholds disproportionately impacting vulnerable groups likely rely heavily social security earnings disparity compounded lifetime contributions resulting diminished returns financial hardship absence alternative reliable income sources
Polling historical data indicates prevalent trend earlier retirements average American claiming benefits initial eligibility age sixty-two despite potential penalties necessity driven health job loss caregiving physically demanding conditions illustrating disconnect policy proposed extended working lifespan reality faced workforce penalizing unable continue employment extended periods counterproductive exacerbating economic insecurity risk vulnerable populations
Plans such as those put forward Republican Study Committee Heritage Foundation making program less adequate future retirees heightening economic insecurity risks particularly affecting low middle-income groups data indicate clear negative impact substantial annual reductions disincentivizing delayed retirements illustrating extreme policy measures detrimental working middle-class stability
The author acknowledges contributions Mimla Wardak Sachin Shiva Alan Cohen Will Ragland Colin Seeberger Lily Roberts Emily Gee along CAP Art Editorial Legal teams review feedback
