In her campaign’s “New Way Forward” policy document, Kamala Harris claimed she “will not let [Donald] Trump and his allies take away the Social Security and Medicare benefits that seniors have earned.” But Harris’ claims suffer from multiple inconvenient truths. 

For starters, under current law and Senate rules, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans cannot change Social Security on a party-line basis. However, Harris’ proposals undermining the Senate filibuster would give them an opening to do so.

Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule’

Policy analysts not steeped in Senate procedure might presume that Congress could enact changes to Social Security via budget reconciliation. That process allows lawmakers to pass fiscal changes via expedited procedures circumventing the Senate’s 60-vote supermajority requirement for most legislation.

But the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” which was codified into law in 1985, includes an explicit prohibition on changing Social Security via budget reconciliation. Section 313(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act, informally known as the “Byrd rule,” contains six tests determining whether legislative provisions are “extraneous” to reconciliation. The sixth test references language stating that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill … that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under Title II of the Social Security Act.”

Lawmakers can and do use reconciliation to make budgetary changes to other Social Security Act programs. For instance, lawmakers in 1996 used reconciliation to reform federal welfare laws, and they have regularly amended Medicare and Medicaid via reconciliation. But any provision altering Social Security’s retirement or disability programs would get stricken as “extraneous,” unless 60 senators vote to waive a point of order. 

That prohibition means that Donald Trump’s proposal to abolish taxes on Social Security benefits likely could not get enacted into law, absent significant support from Senate Democrats. But it also means that analyses claiming the Trump agenda would undermine Social Security’s solvency hold less weight because the proposal having the biggest effect on solvency (i.e., abolishing taxes on Social Security benefits) could have little chance of enactment. Amid election-year attacks, the point bears repeating: Under current law, neither party can change Social Security on its own. 

Democrats Want to Nuke the Filibuster

And only Democrats are itching to change Senate rules to allow legislation to pass on a party-line basis. Harris recently endorsed an “exception” to the filibuster to pass legislation codifying Roe v. Wade, having previously supported other “exceptions” to enact voting rights legislation and the Green New Deal. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., went even further, saying the Senate should “change the [filibuster] rule” that “has been an impediment to progress on a whole host of fronts.”

Under unified Democrat control next year, the Senate filibuster would quickly contain so many “exceptions” for leftist priorities as to become Swiss cheese. But nuking the filibuster means lawmakers could, with 51 Senate votes, circumvent or repeal the current procedural restrictions to change Social Security on a party-line basis. 

Therein lies the great irony of Kamala Harris’ assertion 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” — not Trump but Harris and her allies want to eliminate the biggest guardrail preventing partisan changes to Social Security.

Rhetoric vs. Reality

Democrats want Harris to hit more on entitlements, with one unnamed Democrat elected official recently telling Politico that “she should be coming in on Medicare and Social Security like non-f-cking-stop.”

But her filibuster proposal opens her to myriad questions about how this change will affect a program she says she wants to protect. Does Harris not understand how the Senate over which she presides as vice president currently operates, such that Republicans cannot change Social Security unilaterally? In calling for changes to the filibuster, does she not believe her own rhetoric about the “threat” Republicans purportedly pose to Social Security? Or is she willing to sacrifice the program for her own short-term political gain?

Contra Harris’ claims about “earned benefits,” Medicare and Social Security pay out more to most beneficiaries than beneficiaries pay in taxes. Both programs need significant reforms, and the Senate’s “Byrd rule” prohibition on changing Social Security via reconciliation is designed to force both parties to negotiate in good faith. Harris’ rhetorical demagoguery and willingness to shatter institutional norms defy this tradition, increasing the likelihood of a fiscal calamity that will harm current and future seniors.