Sen. Bill Cassidy on Social Security Reform and Donald Trump’s ‘Majority of One’

0:01Everyone wants health care to be simpler and easier. That's why UnitedHealth Group is fast-tracking more than 60 % of children's procedures that used to need pre-approval. So more kids get the care they need when they need it. And speeding up procedure approvals and payments for more than 1 ,500 rural hospitals. So they can focus on caring for their communities. And that's just the start. Learn more at uhg.com slash access. From the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, this is All Things with Kim Strassel. The 2026 midterms are now officially just three weeks away, but don't think that will mark an end to this year's political drama.

0:44Immediately following the election, Congress comes back for fireworks in a lame duck session as members. Both those returning and those leaving race to finish final priorities. Welcome to All Things with Kim Strassel. And joining me this week is Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy to talk about the election, what's left to be done, and his own very interesting top priority for 2026. Senator Cassidy, welcome to the show. How are you? Kim, I am fantastic. Good to be with you. And I'm looking forward to the conversation. Thank you. Before we talk about the lame duck, I just want to get a few of your thoughts about the election.

1:19How confident are you that when you come back for that lame duck that Republicans will still control the Senate or the House? I'm very confident for those three months that we come back. I think you mean after January. In January. Exactly. We've got some headwinds and we've got some really strong candidates. We've got Dan Sullivan in Alaska, who is contending with somebody who put up with the same name to take away vote from him. But ranked choice voting will actually work for him. And by the way, no one represents a state better than Dan Sullivan represents Alaska. John Husted, incredibly committed to Ohio, served Ohio forever.

1:59I can go down the list. Look at Susan Collins, just the kind of senator that a state like Maine needs. So we've got strong candidates. Hopefully they overcome the headwinds. Yeah, you could go down the list. I do want to just ask that question. You know, Republicans are struggling with a number of issues, high prices, war on Iran. But you just can't get around this. The president chose to engage himself in some primaries. Ultimately, his endorsement helped some newcomers oust sitting incumbents. You were one. Louisiana is a pretty solidly red state, and your opponent in that primary, Julia Letlow, looks set to win the seat.

2:33But the president's endorsement of Paxton, I mean, this is a guy with ethical baggage train that just keeps growing, over Senator John Cornyn, in my mind, is proving to be a pretty costly mistake for Republicans. I mean, that state is sucking money as Republicans try to rescue him. When you look back, and I know maybe this is an indelicate question, but how big a mistake was the president's meddling in these primaries? Well, Tom Tillis would say that Tom Tillis was the guy that could win North Carolina. Right now, you know, it looks difficult for us in North Carolina. If Tom was still there, obviously we could have North Carolina and similarly in Texas.

3:12But the president rules, if you will, in his executive branch and his political operation as a majority of one. And he made that decision. So as you speak of Paxton in Texas, it's costly in potentially two ways. A lot of money that could have been used to spend supporting candidates elsewhere. But if the Democrat wins, it could potentially cost Republicans a seat for the next six years. So costly in at least two ways, but that's the price you pay when somebody rules with the majority of one and their opinion goes against everybody else's, but everybody else is right. So the lame duck, I liked your point about, yes, Republicans will be in control for the next three months.

3:53So we can certainly count on that. But there are still two polar opposite scenarios here. One is, I think, the positive one is that everyone gets done with the politicking, the pressure of midterms is over and everybody comes back and it's a chance to put aside some of that and put their nose to the grindstones and actually get stuff done. The other is that nobody has any incentive to do anything, especially if Democrats win one or both chambers. Democrats won't want to give Republicans any win as the GOP is going out the door. And to be honest, some members might not even bother to show up. Attendance has been a problem in prior lame ducks.

4:33Which scenario do you see holding out here? Somewhere in the middle. Yeah. Permitting reform has been set up. And so there's a bipartisan group that want to support it. It'll take 60 votes and who's ever in charge next time will come where no or close to 60 votes and it can pass the House. So I'd like to think permitting reform can pass. Now, I, as a physician, am very concerned about the high cost of health care. One thing that passed out of the health committee, which I chair with 22 to 1, I think, was patients deserves price tags. John Hickenlooper and Roger Marshall were the leads on that.

5:08My staff and I strongly helped get it through, which allows patients and employers to know how much health care costs before they make the purchase, not find out six months later. And so if we can get that passed, broad bipartisan, I'd like to think that that could go through. So there's some things that will have to pass. One thing I'm working on, Social Security, which seems like a total long shot, but we have a bipartisan group of people pushing it. And lame duck is the ideal time, I think, to pass it. So as unlikely as it seems, I'm still working to that end. Maybe we can get something done.

5:43Well, I want to get into your Social Security proposal because, by the way, I also congratulate you because you're like the first Republican I've even heard use the word Social Security and reform in the same sentence for a very long time. But just on other, you mentioned must-get-done things, a few things that must get done. There's a continuing resolution that we are currently operating under in order to fund the government. That expires in the beginning of December, a national defense authorization bill that has not passed yet, which is remarkable to me. I think this is the first time in 50-some years that Congress has not passed the NDAA yet.

6:21There's a surveillance reauthorization, farm bill, highway bill. Do you see some of these getting through? Some, but certainly not all and probably not a majority. Democrats, if they take over, would like to hold over some of this to have more influence. NDAA, I think my understanding is that the price to get it passed is to increase spending on domestic programs. And so, obviously, if Democrats take over, they would want to push that. And Republicans will reply, we're spending a lot on domestic programs. Right now, our threats are from abroad. So you see where that's going. Yeah. I do think the outcome of the midterms will depend upon what gets through.

7:02And just in the category, the one other category, you mentioned a bipartisan effort. And I can actually see the logic of permitting getting done. Those other bills that I just mentioned, especially on spending, there are great loggerheads there on both sides. and those are the tougher ones. But when both sides have given some, you mentioned permitting, what about college sports or the crypto bill? So college sports, NIL, we're going to vote on that right when we get back. The president really wants it. The president obviously has influence with Mike Johnson. And so I'd like to think that could pass.

7:36We need to make it student athletes, not athletes only in college sports. And I think this will do that. Not perfect. I mean, no bill's perfect unless you write it yourself. but this is a product of many people. So I think it's a good bill, bipartisan. I'd like to think it could get through. We're going to take a quick break when we come back. More with Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and what's coming up in the lame duck of Congress. Everyone wants healthcare to be simpler and easier. That's why UnitedHealth Group is fast-tracking more than 60 % of children's procedures that used to need pre-approval.

8:13So more kids get the care they need when they need it. and speeding up procedure approvals and payments for more than 1 ,500 rural hospitals so they can focus on caring for their communities. And that's just the start. Learn more at uhg.com slash access.

8:33This is Matthew Hennessey, the editor of Free Expression. I want to personally invite you to come check out what we're doing. Signing up for the newsletter couldn't be easier. Just go to our homepage. Directly below the Wall Street Journal logo, you'll find the magic words, free expression wedged between opinion and arts. There's an option to sign up for the newsletter right at the top of our section. Just hit that button and you'll start getting the world's hardest working newsletter delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday. If you aren't a journal subscriber, the newsletter is free, but we are gonna need your email address.

9:09There's a lot of fun stuff in the newsletter that you can only read in the newsletter, and I don't want you to miss any of it. Sign up for free expression today. We'll see you in your inbox.

9:22Welcome back to All Things with Kim Strassel. I'm here with Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy. So talk to me about your obviously perfectly written social security reform bill that you have. And again, you don't normally hear many Republicans talking about these days. You hear a lot of promises that people aren't gonna touch it, heard it, you know, it'll always be there for you. But you and I both know we are looking at a mandatory benefit cut in about six years. If nothing has done, the program is facing terrible financial situation at the moment. So describe your proposal for how you make the system better.

9:59One is first, we set up an investment fund separate from the Social Security Trust Fund. We put$1.5 trillion in it and we allow it to invest it in the economy and we allow it to sit in escrow for 65 to 70 years. The rule of 12, which I know, but don't ask me the definition, shows that it goes like this and then it blossoms out like a tulip or like a martini glass. In the interim, you can use the corpus to offset any borrowing required to pay scheduled benefits. And at the end, when it blossoms out, using incredibly conservative returns, that we would end up paying 60 to 65 percent of the unfunded accrued liability.

10:44By the way, that would take care of 20 percent of our nation's indebtedness. So there's one bill could take care of 20 percent of our nation's indebtedness. And if you look at what is driving up long-term yields, it is a concern the nation will not do anything about its indebtedness. This would indicate to Wall Street, no, 20 percent of it long term is now addressed. I think, and people tell me, that may bring down long term yields, in of itself a benefit to our economy. I'll say one more thing, two more things. First, the federal government has already done something like this. In the National Railroad Retirement System under George W., but with unanimous support in the Senate from Democrats, and it has to be bipartisan, so I emphasize that, they did something similar to this because there were fewer workers and more retirees.

11:35Sounds familiar than the railroad system. Now it's firmly in the black paying benefits. Also, the Canadians have done this and the Canadians are starting to decrease the payroll tax that pays into their retirement system because their investments have done so well that they can now decrease it. And most of the Canadian investments are in the U.S. economy. This is what others do. It's what we do. We should do it for social. Explain something to me. One of the reasons we have a social security hole, and you know this well, is obviously we weren't always in a situation where we had too many retirees and not enough workers.

12:13For a while, that was a very different scenario. The problem, of course, was that there was meant to be all this surplus from Social Security, the so-called wondrous lockbox, and people just pilfered from it over the years and took and took and took. Is there some sort of mechanism in this to make sure that a similar thing doesn't happen, that the money that is invested here isn't just taken by Congress to pay for other ambitions it has? So two things about that. First, what Congress did was they used the trust fund to buy treasuries. And so that offset deficit spending elsewhere. Now, technically, the money is still in the trust fund, but the yield it's getting relative to the market is a lot less.

12:59You know, when first Trump, you would have been buying bills with a yield of one to two percent, which now is less than the rate of inflation, we are losing money on that. As regards our trust fund, we structure it like the federal railroad retirement system did. And we put an arm's arm's length distance between Congress and the executive branch and the people making the decision. But ultimately, Kim, what we say is if Congress does anything to decrease the yield or decrease the balance, it must raise taxes commensurately to make up that deficit. OK. And we figure no future Congress is going to raise taxes.

13:35So that's our belt and suspenders ways of addressing it. This is certainly a better idea than some you hear rolling around right now. Democrats are increasingly vocal about the idea of getting rid of the cap on annual earnings that are subject to Social Security tax. Even some Republicans have embraced this idea. I know at least one of your Republican colleagues has been out there talking about this. Currently, that cap is about$184 ,000 a year worth of annual salary that is subject to Social Security taxes. Fed's, I think, only recently announced it's going to be adjusted up next year to$192 ,000.

14:18This, in my mind, is an absolutely dreadful idea. It's terrible for the economy. There's all kinds of economic consequences doing this. But also, it's concerning to me because if you do that, you fundamentally restructure a program. You turn it into something new. It was always meant to be – this was meant to be a kind of security net for older Americans. Everyone paid in. Everyone got something back. This, by getting rid of that cap, you make it into a full-on wealth transfer program where you're just having wealthier Americans fund like we do in so many other aspects of government. What do you think of that idea?

14:55And how concerned are you that that is another proposal that's also really on the table? So I smiled because some people don't like what I just proposed, even though we already do it in the federal government and other governments do it successfully. And I say, well, Bernie Sanders is proposing a 14 percent increase in marginal wage and marginal tax on everybody, I think, over 250 ,000. One proposal by John Larson is 400 ,000. I think Bernie's$250 ,000, and with no inflator. So eventually, everybody's paying 14 % more in marginal tax. Now, okay, you want my solution, where we use the power of the market, like your 401k, to pay more benefits than you initially put in?

15:39Or do you want their solution, which is going to ask 14 % marginal tax rate, ultimately on everybody, because there is no inflator involved? So I think that people have got to sit and say, what are the options? By the way, what are the options keeping in mind that long-term yields are boosting up because we're not addressing long-term indebtedness? So these are the alternatives. I am glad they're out there. People who criticize my proposal, that's the alternative. And if you want that instead, more power to you. I actually want free markets, free people, and I would say free trade, although that doesn't involve here.

16:17And I think my free markets are a better solution. So if you love free markets and you love free trade, I like free markets and I like trade, and you also believe in the power of the market, one question that I'm sure people would ask you is if you're going to go down this road, Senator, and you're going to use the power of the market for Social Security, why don't you revive the plan that George W. Bush was pushing and allow everybody to sort of invest in their own way? Yeah. So my proposal is a political proposal as well as a financial proposal. Now, by the way, Bill Clinton proposed taking the trust fund and putting it in the market.

16:54And Republicans excoriated him. If we had done it, frankly, right now, we'd be pretty good. George W. allowed younger people to have individual accounts. If we had done it, we'd be pretty good. But Democrats excoriated him. I had to learn from those two lessons. I'm not about coming up with a white paper that people can congratulate me, isn't it a good job? I'm about passing legislation. And politics is the art of the possible. If Republicans didn't like this and Democrats didn't like that, is there a middle ground that we can get both to like? That's my goal. Let's pass something as opposed to just congratulate ourselves on purity.

17:29I love the idea of somebody addressing social security, whether this proposal is the best proposal ever, or maybe just there's some other ones that are out there. But the reality is that nobody has had the appetite to even touch this. And I totally see your logic. OK, lame duck. There's going to be a lot of members there that are maybe perhaps leaving. So they've got less to lose. Maybe the politicking is over. What makes you think anyone is going to carve out the time to suddenly address Social Security in this lame duck? I have a commitment from the Senate Finance Chair and from John Thune that if I can get everybody on board I need to get on board, that they'll give me a hearing and a markup and time on the floor.

18:11Okay. So I got that agreement. I've talked to the White House. They're interested. Now, you want interest to translate into action. I've got Dick Durbin, who's retiring, but also other Democratic senators who are supporting as well as Republican senators. Now, you can say I don't have all the pieces yet, but I don't quit. I don't quit. And I'm going to keep on working until I can get it done. And by the way, I have taken this further than it's been taken since 1983. So we can say, oh, we're out of here. Why wrap it up? Or we can say, we got three more months to pass this. We've got at least some of the pieces in line.

18:48If nothing else, we'll create momentum for next Congress. But let's try as best as we can right now. Our country wasn't founded by quitters, and I'm not going to quit. I'm going to keep on working at it. We're going to take one more break. Everyone wants healthcare to be simpler and easier. That's why United Health Group is fast tracking more than 60 % of children's procedures that used to need pre-approval. So more kids get the care they need when they need it. And speeding up procedure approvals and payments for more than 1500 rural hospitals. So they can focus on caring for their communities.

19:24And that's just the start. Learn more at uhg.com slash access.

19:33From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is All Things with Kim Strassel. Welcome back. Do you think that what's been happening in the bond market is also playing into this? And what effect do you think a bill like this, even the discussion of a bill like this, might have on the yields that we're seeing at the moment? There's nothing like a hanging to sharpen a man's mind. When Congress hears from the actuaries that in six years, the trust fund will go insolvent and either will cut benefits for Social Security, just Social Security, old age retirement by 28.5 percent. Or one of my colleagues said, don't worry, we'll just borrow money to bail it out.

20:15CBO says they cannot model how harmful that would be to our economy to just borrow our way out of it. So if we've got two scenarios which are awful, then maybe that's going to sharpen people's minds. If this were to actually pass, what effect do you think it would have? So a friend of mine who's done extremely well taking a company that trades bonds, he said he thinks this would signal to the bond market that Congress is finally serious about taking on long-term structural debt and that that would give a downward pressure on long-term yields. As I mentioned, this would address 20 % of our nation's indebtedness.

20:53Now, boom, 20 % is gone. Imagine the impact that would have on, I think it'd be a very positive impact. But more importantly, people who make their living and their fortunes trading in bonds think that it would. So I can't know for sure. I think there's a good chance that it will. Let me ask about one other thing, too, that when you were talking about, it was quite a big deal, especially when folks were trying to talk about the problems with health care costs going up. But where stands your proposal, your push that you were really on for a while about health savings accounts? So first, Republicans have got to have a response to the high cost of health care for the American people.

21:33Now, so far, the president and MAGA have focused on drug costs. That's part of it, but it's only a part of it. Democrats have focused on how do we decrease the cost of premiums. That's a part of it, but it's not all part of it. When someone has a$3 ,000 deductible, giving more money to insurance companies does not help you with the$3 ,000 deductible. My plan, going back to free markets, free trade, free people, if you give market power to the consumer of health care, you're going to drive down cost. So out of the health committee, were pushing the Patient Deserves Price Tag Act. Roger Marshall is a Republican lead.

22:12My staff and I really helped get that across. It came out of committee 22 to one, strong bipartisan. That gives the consumer the knowledge of the price. There are applications being developed right now that you can just go on and you'll be able to say, hmm, if I get the x-ray here, it's$500. Across the street, it's 50. I'm going to the doctor. If they order x-rays, this is what it's going to cost. That empowers the consumer to choose the lowest cost option. The problem with healthcare, there's an asymmetry of information. Insurance companies, providers know everything. The consumer zip. Let's give the consumer as much knowledge as they have and markets begin to work and it lowers costs and it gives power to the patient.

23:01Well, I can't agree with that more. You can go back, I remember writing things 15 years ago with some of the early experiments to try to make sure that people could actually see how much their health care costs and make some qualitative choices. So I'll be really curious to see how this goes. Can I mention one more thing about that? Another part of the proposal, and this is paid for, is that for those who are employer-sponsored insurance in the middle income range, you could advance money into a health savings account to help them with that$3 ,000 deductible. This is paid for, by the way, and you could give them $3 ,000 for$2 ,000 for a family of four.

23:36Most families will not have more than$2 ,000 in a given year. And so you make the cost of being insured a lot less. You're not giving money to the insurance company who takes 20 % off the top. Right. You're giving the money to the employee, to the consumer, and she's going to use 100 % of the money for her health care. It's a better way to go. And one more time, this can be paid for already with existing dollars the government uses for health care. Last question. And mostly because, you know, I rarely get to talk to a senator who is departing and is getting in and I might not be able to get you back before that day happens.

24:12So, you know, as you're beginning to come to the end of your time, at least this time around in the Senate, you look back. What are some of the highlights you remember or any regrets you have summing up of your time in the Senate? I'm actually not looking back. I'm trying to look forward. I think that our political future is going to be heavily influenced by DSA on the left, but I think that MAGA has about run its course. I just don't see the answers coming out of the White House right now as being suitable for the moment. As a conservative, one more time, who believes in free markets, free trade, and free people, how do you plot a course that allows the benefit of this incredible country to flow to the middle-income Americans?

24:57How do they enjoy this market that others are really enjoying? And how do you take AI, which has such the ability to benefit the average person, and make it work for her and make it work for him? I am looking to the future as to how we do that, because I think our country needs to plot a different course from that which we have right now, or that's what we're looking at. But we need to plot a course that works for the average American. Well, Senator Bill Cassidy, I thank you for what you have done and what you clearly are still intending to do. We also want to thank all of our listeners. We are here every week.

25:33If you like the show, please do hit the subscribe button. And if you'd like to write to us, you can at ATKim at WSJ.com.

25:47Everyone wants health care to be simpler and easier. That's why UnitedHealth Group is fast-tracking more than 60 % of children's procedures that used to need pre-approval, so more kids get the care they need when they need it. And speeding up procedure approvals and payments for more than 1 ,500 rural hospitals, so they can focus on caring for their communities. And that's just the start. Learn more at uhg.com slash access.