Social Security Mentioned Only Once During Vice President Debate

While Republican Ohio Senator JD Vance and Democratic Minnesota Governor Tim Walz argued over several issues during Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Social Security was noticeably absent form the conversation.

The Social Security Administration’s upcoming financial crisis is one of the most pressing policy concerns candidates are up against. A recent poll from Bloomberg/Morning Consult found that the issue of Social Security and Medicare is “very important” for helping 63 percent of voters decide who to cast a ballot for in the upcoming presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

While introducing himself, Vance reiterated that, growing up, his grandmother needed Social Security benefits to put food on their table. It was the only mention of Social Security during the entire debate.

Prior to the debate, Vance made several statements about his view of the Social Security program.

“If the argument here is we have to cut Social Security, then what you’re effectively saying is we just have to privatize what is currently a public problem of who pays for the older generation,” Vance previously told The New York Times. “And I don’t know why people think that you solve many problems by taking a bunch of elderly people and saying, ‘You’re on your own.'”

The Social Security Administration has long been warning that the program is set to become financially insolvent as early as 2033. At that point, beneficiaries wouldn’t be able to get their full payments as more baby boomers retire and too few younger Americans make up the current workforce.

Despite this, Vance has remained anti-Social Security cuts.

“He’s walking a tightrope between traditional GOP views and some pretty out-there ideas,” Michael Ryan, a finance expert and founder of michaelryanmoney.com, told Newsweek.

“Vance isn’t keen on slashing Social Security benefits. That’s a departure from the usual Republican playbook of ‘entitlement reform.’ Instead, he’s pitching a few unconventional solutions.”

Vance has said that if more people are working, Social Security’s funding will benefit.

“You get more revenue, yes, from tariffs, but from more people being in the labor force, from higher productivity growth, from higher wages, from transitioning young people who are not working into the work force,” Vance has said.

But experts said this is far from enough to solve the insolvency problem.

“It’s not a crazy idea, but it’s no silver bullet, either,” Ryan said.

Vance also has suggested that higher import taxes could help fund the program, and that middle and high earners should rely less on Social Security.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to want to expand Social Security while raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for it.

“Most Republicans are all about trimming benefits to tackle the deficit,” Ryan said. “Vance is trying to chart a middle path, but it’s a narrow one.”

Walz has been clear he is dead set against slashing benefits and has also expressed statements indicating he’d like to eliminate Social Security taxes for roughly 90 percent of recipients. While composing a relatively small group, the wealthy would see more of their money go into the program.

“It’s a move that could put more money in the pockets of middle-class retirees,” Ryan said. “He wants the ultra-rich to keep paying into the system, even after they’ve hit the current cap. It’s a controversial move, but it could help shore up the program’s finances.”

As governor, Walz eliminated state income taxes on Social Security benefits for couples making less than $100,000 yearly as well as for individuals earning less than $78,000. That covered roughly 75 percent of beneficiaries in the state.

Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, said Vance’s take on Social Security generally mirrors Trump’s in that it opposes cuts to the existing program.

“Raising middle-class taxes—I don’t like that idea for obvious reasons,” Vance previously said. “You can get some revenue out of raising taxes on wealthy Americans, but there’s no way that you can run an economy at a structural growth rate of around 1 percent with demographics that are getting worse and worse and worse and solve the problem by taxing rich people. You have to fix the underlying issue.”

But there is some trepidation regarding certain policies that would boost the program’s funding.

“At the same time, Vance has expressed hesitation in supporting new taxes to fund the program,” Beene told Newsweek. “Instead, he wants to fund benefits through an increase in the country’s workforce, saying on multiple occasions that more individuals in the workforce will make fully funding Social Security an easier endeavor.”

Vance has also indicated that increasing the birth rate would help alleviate some of the long-term pressures on Social Security.

“Vance’s viewpoint is more long term, focusing on societal shifts like workforce growth and birth rates, which wouldn’t offer immediate solutions,” Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, told Newsweek.

“JD Vance may be looking in his side-view mirrors where objects, such as the Social Security issue, are closer than they may appear.”

Newsweek reached out to Vance and Walz’s office for comment via email.