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”. However, Harris ‘ assertions suffer from a number of awkward beliefs.  ,
For example, under existing laws and Senate guidelines, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans may change Social Security on a party-line schedule. However, Harris ‘ suggestions for removing the Senate filibuster would give them an opening.
Senate’s ‘ Byrd Rule ‘
Policy analysts who are unfamiliar with Senate process may assume that Congress has the authority to pass Social Security changes through budget reconciliation. Legislators can pass governmental changes faster than the Senate’s 60-vote supermajority requirement for the majority of legislation.
But the Senate’s” Byrd rule”, which was codified into legislation in 1985, includes an obvious ban on changing Social Security via funds peace. 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 Senate or the House of Representatives shall not be in order to consider any peace act that contains recommendations regarding the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance plan established under Title II of the Social Security Act, according to the fifth test.
Legislators can and do apply peace to alter different Social Security Act programs ‘ budgets. For example, lawmakers in 1996 used reconciliation to revolution national welfare laws, and they have often amended Medicare and Medicaid via peace. However, unless 60 lawmakers vote to drop a point of order, any clause that alters Social Security’s retirement or disability courses will be flagged as “extraneous”  ,
Without substantial support from Senate Democrats, Donald Trump’s plan to prohibit taxes on Social Security benefits is likely to never be passed into law. However, it also means that analyses that claim the Trump agenda would undermine Social Security’s solvency are less important because the proposal with the greatest impact on solvency ( i .e., eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits ) may have a low chance of passing. Amid election-year problems, the place bears repeating: Under current rules, neither party may change Social Security on its own.  ,
Liberals Want to Nuke the Filibuster
Only Democrats are interested in changing Senate regulations to help party-line policy. Harris just endorsed a “exception” to the legislature to move legislation codifying Roe v. Wade, having previously backed “exceptions” to pass legislation enacting the Green New Deal and voting rights legislation. 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”.
The Senate legislature would immediately have so many “exceptions” for communist priorities that it would be Swiss cheese under integrated Democrat manage next year. However, by repealing the legislature, legislators had avoid or replace the current legal restrictions to transform Social Security on a party-line base with 51 Senate votes.  ,
Therein lies the great irony of Kamala Harris ‘ claim that” with Trump back in the White House, there would be no guardrails preventing 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 remove the biggest guardrail preventing partisan changes to Social Security.
Rhetoric vs. Real
Democrats want Harris to expand on rights, according to an unnamed Democrat elected standard who recently told Politico that” she should be entering Medicare and Social Security like non-f-cking-stop.”
But her legislature proposal raises a number of questions about how a system she claims to shield may be impacted by this change. Does Harris not comprehend how the Senate, in which she serves as vice president, now functions, and how Republicans cannot formally alter Social Security? In calling for modifications to the legislature, does she not believe her own speech about the” risk” Republican apparently pose to Social Security? Or does she want to give up the software in exchange for her own social gain in the long run?
Contrary to Harris ‘ assertions that most beneficiaries receive more money from Medicare and Social Security than they receive in taxes, contrary to Harris ‘ claims about “earned benefits.” Both programs require significant changes, and the Senate’s” Byrd rule” ban on shifting Social Security through peace is intended to compel both parties to engage in good faith negotiations. Harris ‘ rhetorical populism and commitment to upend institutional standards defy this custom, increasing the risk of a senior citizen’s fiscal disaster that will be disastrous for both current and future generations.