Auchincloss Calls a Higher Retirement Age a 'Sensible Reform' for Social Security. It Is a Benefit Cut.

July 02, 2026

Last summer, Rep. Auchincloss used his Substack newsletter to explain how he would “save Social Security.” In a post dated July 24, 2025, he restated his “10-word Democratic agenda for financial freedom: Treat cost disease, reduce the debt, and save Social Security,” and then wrote that Democrats should earn young voters’ trust “by leading on sensible reforms for Social Security, which could include:”¹

“Increase its returns: allow Social Security to invest in the market through a sovereign wealth fund. This bipartisan proposal draws inspiration from the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees, as well as other nations’ retirement systems.

“Index it to earnings: subject earnings above $400K to the Social Security payroll tax. Reduce benefits for higher-income retirees on a sliding scale.

“Update it for longer lifespans: gradually increase the full retirement age. Establish exceptions for physically taxing jobs and waivers for hardship cases.”¹

Two of those three items are benefit cuts. He hedged with “could include” and attached carve-outs, but when a sitting congressman publishes the reforms he wants his party to lead on, that is his position until he says otherwise.

What the euphemisms mean

“Update it for longer lifespans” is the gentlest available phrasing for raising the full retirement age. There is nothing gentle about the policy. Because Social Security adjusts benefits by claiming age, raising the full retirement age cuts monthly benefits for every new retiree, no matter when they claim: each one-year increase works out to roughly a 7 percent cut.² This is the signature Social Security proposal of the House Republican Study Committee, whose budget would raise the age to 69, cutting benefits for future retirees by about 13 percent.³ Auchincloss does not say how far he would raise it. At the Republican budget’s number, a retiree receiving today’s average benefit of $1,688 per month would lose about $2,600 per year.⁴

His carve-outs for “physically taxing jobs” and “hardship cases” concede the core problem: a nurse, a line cook, or a construction worker often cannot stay on the job into their late 60s the way a member of Congress can. Everyone who does not win a waiver still takes the cut. And the “longer lifespans” premise leaves out who is living longer. Gains in life expectancy have gone overwhelmingly to higher earners, so raising the age asks the people who die youngest to give up the most.

“Reduce benefits for higher-income retirees on a sliding scale” is means-testing, a cut written into the benefit formula. It is the other half of the Republican Study Committee pairing: their budget also reduces benefits for higher earners through the formula while raising the retirement age.³ Means-testing has always been the wedge that turns Social Security from an earned benefit into a program that is easier to cut next time.

The sovereign wealth fund is not privatization; it involves no individual accounts. It deserves scrutiny anyway. Its leading version, from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, would borrow $1.5 trillion, put it in the stock market, and count on roughly 8 percent annual returns; if the fund falls short, the plan raises payroll taxes and the taxable maximum automatically.⁵ The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget concluded a sovereign debt fund “can’t save Social Security,” citing analysis that the fund has only about a 30 percent chance of earning enough to pay back its own borrowing in full.⁶ That is not a solvency plan. It is a leveraged bet with the country’s retirement guarantee as collateral.

The record

Auchincloss knows exactly what Social Security means to this district. He cosponsored the Social Security Fairness Act, which repealed the unfair benefit reductions for public servants like teachers, firefighters, and police officers.⁷ In the last Congress he cosponsored the Social Security 2100 Act, which would have raised benefits across the board.⁸ And when the Trump administration moved to close the Social Security office in Fall River, he stood outside it and called Social Security “the most important program for retirement security for American elders, and the most important anti-poverty program for American children, as well.”⁹

That makes the current gap harder to explain. The Social Security Expansion Act, H.R. 1700, is pending in the House right now. It would raise benefits by about $2,400 per year, apply the payroll tax to income above $250,000, and extend the program’s solvency through 2096, with no increase in the retirement age and no benefit cuts.¹⁰ It has 37 cosponsors, including two of Auchincloss’s Massachusetts colleagues: Reps. Jim McGovern and Stephen Lynch. Auchincloss is not one of them.¹¹

The deadline is real. The program’s trustees project that the retirement trust fund will be depleted in 2033, after which incoming taxes would cover only 77 percent of scheduled benefits.¹² But a shortfall does not dictate its own solution. Congress can fill the gap from the top, by making high earners pay the same rate on their income that a teacher pays on all of hers, or it can close the gap from the middle, by making people work longer for less. Auchincloss’s list does some of the first and a lot of the second. I would do the first, and none of the second.

Where I stand

My position has been on this website since the start of the campaign, and it has not needed a euphemism yet. I will cosponsor the Social Security Expansion Act on day one. Expand benefits by $2,400 per year. Apply the payroll tax to income above $250,000, which asks nothing more of 93 percent of American households. No increase in the retirement age. No sliding-scale benefit cuts. No borrowing a trillion and a half dollars to play the market with the one retirement benefit that is guaranteed.¹⁰ You can read the full position here.

The stakes in this district are not abstract. By Auchincloss’s own count, about 150,000 of his constituents receive Social Security benefits.⁹ For an average retiree, the distance between the Republican budget’s retirement age and the Social Security Expansion Act is roughly $5,000 a year: about $2,600 lost to a retirement age of 69, versus $2,400 gained through expansion.³⁴¹⁰

Auchincloss and I will both be on the Democratic primary ballot on September 1. Voters deserve to hear us debate this face to face: does the Fourth District’s representative believe the answer to Social Security’s shortfall is asking billionaires to pay what nurses pay, or asking nurses to work until 69? I know my answer.

---

References