If Congress doesn’t act, the average Arkansas retiree could see a Social Security monthly benefit cut of $430 in 2032, based on findings from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

More than 19% of the state’s population, or 589,427 Arkansans, could be affected, including retirees, survivors and dependents. Arkansas could lose somewhere around $3 billion, which would be 1.6% of its economy. That percentage is the eighth highest among all the states.

All of that’s according to a new interactive tool, “No State Spared,” on the CRFBs website at www.crfb.org/nostatespared.

The reduction would occur because the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund is set to become insolvent in the fourth quarter of 2032. 

That’s the funding mechanism that pays Social Security benefits to senior citizens and their survivors. Another Social Security trust fund for disabled Americans is in good shape for at least the next 75 years.

Social Security has been able to pay full benefits to senior citizens because the government collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out until 2010. When that was occurring, the extra money was loaned out to the rest of the debt-ridden federal government through treasury bond purchases. But that money is dwindling fast.

When the trust fund reaches zero, Social Security by law must only pay out what it collects. The Social Security Administration announced this week that it projects that change will happen in the fourth quarter of 2032. Recipients then would see a benefit cut of 22%. 

The CRFB had already prepared its No State Spared report and assumed benefit cuts of 24%, so its numbers are higher – $469 per average Arkansan. It plans to revise its numbers in response to the new 22% projection. 

Regardless, the deadline is a little more than six years from now. If the Social Security Administration’s projections are correct, it will occur within the term of the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas featuring Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, Democrat Hallie Shoffner, and Libertarian Jeff Wadlin.

What could the winner of that race do to prevent that 22% cut? In a CRFB webinar June 10, Social Security Administration Chief Actuary Karen Glenn said revenues would have to be increased by one-third, or benefits would have to be reduced by one-fourth. Or there could be a combination of the two.

‘Simple math problem. Difficult political problem.’

Easier said than done.

“I always say it’s a simple math problem,” she said. “It’s a difficult political problem.”

Glenn said increasing payroll taxes by 4.42% would ensure Social Security’s solvency for 75 years. 

That would be a hefty tax increase on younger workers, and it’s getting worse. Last year the projected increase was 3.82%, but the SSA is now assuming revenues will decrease. 

That’s because it assumes that the average woman will have 1.75 children instead of 1.9, as it previously assumed, and that illegal immigration will decline. Both occurrences would reduce the number of young people paying into the system, and illegal immigrants are ineligible to collect benefits. Last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act also reduced revenues somewhat. On the plus side, the SSA projects worker productivity and average earnings will grow faster than previously expected. 

On the cost side, Mark Sarney, the CRFB’s Social Security specialist, said one partial solution is to limit annual benefits to $100,000 for a married couple. The change would affect mostly wealthier Americans and would close one fifth of the gap. 

While details and projections can differ, we’ve known for many years that Social Security’s finances were on a downward path. Birth rates have declined from a peak of 3.7 children per woman in 1957. The population is aging, and Americans are living longer. In 1940, average life expectancy was 64. It’s now 79. In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. By 2028, the ratio will be 2.5 to 1.

Nevertheless, Congress has done nothing to address Social Security’s imbalances since 1983. In fact, it doesn’t even vote on its budget. 

One alternative is for Congress sometime around 2032 to pay the shortfall out of the general fund, thereby increasing the deficit.

That’s what I predict will happen. But Mark Sarney, the CRFB’s Social Security specialist, doesn’t think Congress will act. The federal government already is $39 trillion in debt and will be much more so in 2032. 

Lawmakers must do something. The year 2032 is fast approaching.

“The trustees have consistently advised that Congress should act sooner rather than later,” the SSA’s Glenn said. “We are just about out of time for that ‘sooner.’ We are basically at the ‘later.’”

© 2026 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Steve Brawner’s column is syndicated to 24 news outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com.