Tim Sheehy is Wrong That Jon Tester Backs “Slashing Social Security Benefits”
By Louis Jacobson for Politifact
If Your Time is short
U.S. Senator Jon Tester, D-Mont., has made favorable comments about the Simpson-Bowles commission, which in 2010 proposed, but did not adopt, a range of fiscal policies, including three that likely would have cut Social Security benefits.
Tester’s praise generally focused on the commission’s bipartisan approach. He and his campaign said in 2010, after the commission’s final report was released, that he didn’t agree with all of the proposed blueprint, including its Social Security provisions.
Tester’s current stated position is to support Social Security as is. He’s been endorsed by several Social Security advocacy groups.
Social Security comes up frequently in close-fought campaigns, usually with candidates accusing their opponents of trying to damage the program. The Montana U.S. Senate race, which might determine which party controls the chamber beginning in 2025, is no exception.
In a September 10 op-ed in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Republican candidate Tim Sheehy accused Democratic Senator Jon Tester of endangering Social Security, which provides income security for retirees and people with disabilities.
"Tester is the only candidate in this race who supported slashing Social Security benefits," Sheehy wrote, also naming other entitlement programs he said Tester wants to cut.
Sheehy’s campaign told PolitiFact that its evidence is Tester’s support for the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bipartisan effort launched in 2010 to determine ways to improve the nation’s long-term fiscal health.
However, Tester’s broad support for the commission more than a decade ago is not equivalent to supporting "slashing Social Security" now; the connection is more tenuous than the Sheehy campaign portrays it.
The Simpson-Bowles Commission and What Its Report Said About Social Security
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, established by an executive order from then-President Barack Obama in February 2010, included 18 members, split between Democratic and Republican appointees. It was named for its co-chairs, former Senator Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and Erskine Bowles, a onetime chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton.
Obama ordered the commission’s creation after the Senate failed to do it. In the Senate vote, Tester supported the panel’s creation.
In December 2010, the commission released its final report, which included dozens of proposals to cut discretionary spending, overhaul the tax code and Social Security and rein in health care costs. The package of recommendations was never adopted.
The final report included 10 Social Security recommendations. Many were uncontroversial, including a guaranteed minimum benefit for low-wage workers, a payment increase to the oldest beneficiaries and a hardship exemption for people who cannot work but don’t officially qualify for disability benefits.
Other proposals wouldn’t have affected benefit levels or eligibility, including raising the income limit beyond which payroll taxes are not imposed, a move that would help extend Social Security’s solvency.
The three Social Security proposals that drew criticism, particularly from Democrats, were:
Changing the formula for how benefits are adjusted for inflation, which would have trimmed payments, potentially by 3% for a typical retired worker.
Phasing in higher retirement ages to qualify for full benefits, based on increases in life expectancy. The standard retirement age is scheduled to rise to 67 by 2027; the Simpson-Bowles plan proposed raising the age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075.
Changing the benefit formula in a way that would have reduced benefits for higher-earning beneficiaries, but that could have affected other people, too.
To advance its final proposal to Congress, 14 of the commission’s 18 members had to vote in favor of it. That didn’t happen; only 11 members supported the final report. The "no" votes were a mix of liberals and conservatives who opposed elements of the blueprint, including the Social Security proposals.
Tester’s Connection to Simpson-Bowles
Beyond his initial vote to create the commission, Tester has spoken positively of the panel’s efforts over the years, generally praising it as a model of bipartisanship. But he has expressed concern about the Social Security policies included in the final report.
Because the commission never approved the final plan, senators, including Tester, never voted on it. In a 2011 floor speech after the commission released its report, Tester said, "While I may not embrace every component of their plan, I applaud their hard work."
During Tester’s 2012 reelection campaign, his Republican opponent, then-U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg, also attacked Tester on Social Security, citing his support for the commission. The Helena Independent Record reported in 2012 that Tester’s then-spokesman, Aaron Murphy, specifically said Tester opposed the commission’s Social Security proposals.
"Cutting the debt and deficit will be about priorities, and Jon believes cutting the safety net from seniors is not what we should be discussing," Murphy said, telling the newspaper that although Tester knew changes were needed to protect Social Security’s solvency, he did not believe that beneficiaries should suffer as they happened.
Tester also said during the 2012 campaign that "there's a lot of stuff" in the Simpson-Bowles final report "that I don't like, but that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked. Everybody needs to feel a little pain, but not one sector needs to feel all the pain. I think the public would accept that."
Tester’s spokesperson was also quoted in 2011 saying, "While Jon doesn't agree with everything in the proposal of Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission for cutting the debt and deficit, he thinks it is a balanced, bipartisan approach."
Tester’s most recent comment about Simpson-Bowles, made in February 2023 on NBC Montana, focused again on the commission’s format rather than specific aspects of its final plan.
"We had a committee a few years back called Simpson-Bowles that came up with some great ideas," Tester said. "I supported it, and I think we ought to go back and re-establish a committee like that and come up with some ideas on how we can reduce the debt. It’s important that we do that and not destroy the economy in the process."
What is Tester Saying Now About Social Security?
Tester’s campaign website calls him "Montana’s leading champion to protect and bolster Medicare and Social Security," adding that he "will never stop fighting for Montana seniors and to protect the earned benefits that provide a dignified retirement."
That’s almost identical to Sheehy’s statement on his own website. "We must keep our commitment to every Montana senior to protect their Social Security and Medicare benefits. Our nation made a promise to our seniors, and I will fight each and every day to honor that promise and preserve the benefits they’ve earned."
Meanwhile, several groups that advocate for Social Security and its beneficiaries have endorsed Tester: the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Montana Alliance for Retired Americans and Social Security Works.
In its endorsement, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare — which has given Tester perfect scores for voting in line with the group’s priorities in 2018, 2020 and 2022 — said, "Let us say this about Senator Tester: Time and again, he has been a leader on seniors’ issues. He has opposed GOP efforts to privatize Social Security."
Our Ruling
Sheehy said Tester "supported slashing Social Security benefits."
Sheehy cites broad favorable comments Tester has made about the Simpson-Bowles commission, which in 2010 proposed but did not execute a range of fiscal policies, including three that likely would have cut Social Security benefits.
However, Tester’s comments generally focused on the commission’s bipartisan approach. He and his campaign said after the commission’s final report was released in 2010 that he didn’t agree with all of its proposed blueprint, including the Social Security provisions.
Sheehy’s statement also ignores Tester’s stated position of supporting Social Security as is, and his endorsement by several Social Security advocacy groups.
We rate the statement False.
So when Senator Tester voted for the huge spending bills such as the "Inflation Reduction Act" which caused the great inflation, wasn't that the same as cutting my Social Security?