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
