Seventy-one million Americans who collect Social Security would receive a 2 percent across-the-board benefit increase under legislation reintroduced in Congress this summer. That total breaks down to roughly 54 million retired workers plus 9 million survivors and dependents. Rep. John Larson filed the House version, H.R. 9519, on June 29, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal followed with a Senate companion, S. 5042, on July 21. The number obscures a harder fact: versions of this same bill have circulated through nearly every Congress since 2013, and none of them has ever reached a floor vote.
A 2 Percent Increase Wrapped Inside a Bigger Formula Rewrite
The 2 percent bump is not a stand-alone raise. It sits inside a larger rewrite of how Social Security calculates and pays benefits, one Larson has proposed in some form for more than a decade. Beyond the across-the-board increase, the bill would switch the annual cost-of-living adjustment to a formula built on the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, which weights medical spending more heavily than the index Social Security currently uses, and would set a new minimum benefit equal to 125 percent of the federal poverty line for a worker with a full career of covered earnings.
The package also repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, the two rules that have long reduced Social Security checks for public-sector retirees who also receive a pension from work not covered by Social Security taxes, and it would merge the retirement and disability trust funds into a single account. That merger is a technical maneuver, not a new idea, since Congress has reallocated funds between the two programs more than a dozen times before to avoid depletion without passing separate legislation for either one.
To help pay for the added benefits, the bill would raise the payroll tax cap above $400,000 in wages, according to the joint announcement Larson’s and Blumenthal’s offices issued when the bills were filed. Earnings above today’s taxable maximum but below $400,000 would stay untaxed for Social Security purposes, a gap that narrows automatically as average wages rise. Larson and Blumenthal describe the change as requiring the wealthiest earners to contribute on the same basis as everyone else, since income above the current cap currently escapes Social Security taxation entirely.
Free retirement updates: One number can cost or save hundreds a month in retirement, and the free Retirement Shield newsletter surfaces the ones worth knowing. Sign up free.
A Bill That Keeps Returning Without Reaching the Floor
Larson introduced H.R. 9519 in the House on June 29, where it was referred to the Ways and Means Committee along with the Education and Workforce and Energy and Commerce committees, a three-committee referral reflecting how many parts of federal law the bill touches, from benefit formulas to agency staffing rules to overpayment recovery. That breadth is part of why a bill this large has struggled to advance: rewriting several unrelated titles of the Social Security Act in one package gives multiple committee chairs a reason to leave it untouched rather than a single clear path toward a vote.
Blumenthal’s companion, S. 5042, followed on July 21 and was referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the panel that would need to advance it before the full chamber could vote. Its Senate cosponsors — Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois — are all Democrats, meaning the bill currently carries no Republican support in either chamber. A bill referred to committee without bipartisan backing has little practical route to floor time, regardless of how many beneficiaries it would eventually touch.
That pattern predates this Congress by more than ten years. Larson has introduced some version of the Social Security 2100 Act in nearly every Congress since 2013, and, according to a legislative summary published by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, none of those earlier versions ever received a floor vote either, regardless of which party controlled the chamber. The bill has functioned more as a recurring messaging vehicle in Social Security debates than as live legislation with a realistic path to passage.
Larson’s Exit Leaves the Bill Searching for a New Champion
This iteration arrives with a complication the earlier ones did not have. Larson lost his primary in Connecticut this cycle and will leave Congress at the end of the current term, meaning the lawmaker who has carried this specific bill through more than a dozen years of reintroductions will not be in the next Congress to reintroduce it again. Whether another member picks up the vehicle, breaks it into smaller standalone bills, or lets it lapse is an open question the current text does not answer.
The 71-million and 2-percent figures driving this week’s coverage — the estimate that the increase would reach about 54 million retired workers and roughly 9 million survivors and dependents — trace to outside reporting on the bill’s provisions rather than to the bill text or an official Social Security Administration actuarial score. That distinction matters for anyone reading the number as a settled fact: it describes what the formula would do if enacted, not a payment anyone is scheduled to receive.
Solvency projections for the combined trust funds have returned to the political conversation this year, which is part of why a bill introduced and shelved so many times keeps resurfacing. But renewed attention to solvency does not change the arithmetic that has kept this bill off the floor since 2013: a package this large, with no Republican cosponsors and a lead sponsor already on his way out of Congress, remains a proposal describing what 71 million people could gain rather than legislation on any calendar for a vote.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by The Money Overview editorial team.
More Financial Reading
