Social Security research group axed, including six centers
Social Security Administration sign on field office building. SSA is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government that administers Social Security - San Jose, California, USA - 2020
The Social Security Administration has summarily closed a federally funded consortium of research centers, including one at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, that studied demographic trends and the impacts of policy on the federal retirement system.
Terminating the program has sharply limited the program's research sources at a time when the Social Security Administration is poised to cut 7,000 workers, close field offices across the country and cancel the ability for people to file for benefits by telephone.
'It's very, very frightening,' said Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works. 'I've been working on this issue for 50 years and I think this is the most destabilized I've ever seen the administration of Social Security.'
The UW center was one of six members of the Social Security Administration Retirement and Disability Research Consortium. The consortium was established in its current form in 2019, a successor to retirement research centers established in 1998.
The other five are Boston College, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC), the University of Michigan, and Baruch College.
The Trump administration announced Feb. 21 that the consortium was being dissolved in keeping with an executive order President Donald Trump signed Jan. 22 gutting diversity activities across the federal government.
Shutting down the consortium canceled 19 research projects that were underway at the UW's Social Security research center, said its director, J. Michael Collins. Collins, a specialist in family economics at UW-Madison, holds positions at the university's School of Human Ecology, The La Follette School of Public Affairs and several other university offices.
Research by the center and its consortium partners in collaboration with Social Security represented an important collaboration that has helped shape policy for the 90-year-old Social Security program, Collins said. Studies on the income and expenses of older Americans, for example, have helped guide the formulas that the Social Administration uses to develop its annual cost of living adjustments.
'It really is a collaboration, and that is hard to build,' Collins said — and may be difficult to recreate.
Along with canceling the consortium agreements, the Social Security Administration has relocated its own research operations while also cutting staff.
'They've greatly reduced their ability to conduct research internally,' Collins said. 'Why would they want to eliminate their research capacity to that degree?'
Established during the Great Depression to lift seniors out of poverty, the Social Security program is primarily funded by payroll taxes. As each generation retires, its members' benefits are paid by the generation of workers behind them.
Social Security provides retirement benefits as well as income for people with disabilities. About 73 million people in the U.S. receive benefits from the system, according to the Social Security Administration. Three out of four are 65 or older. Another 15% are people with disabilities under the age of 65.
One project underway at the UW center when the research consortium was canceled was looking at the impact of state mandates requiring employers to provide sick leave for employees — a law on the books in about a half-dozen states. (Wisconsin is not one of them.)
That study could have provided evidence whether or not mandated sick leave policies reduce the need for future permanent disability claims. 'Either way, that's an important question for Social Security' to understand, Collins said.
Another project cut off was a study of Long Covid — the lingering collection of health-hampering symptoms reported by millions of COVID-19 patients. Understanding how the condition affects trends in work, health and disability could inform the projections Social Security actuaries must make as they look at the program's prospects 75 years into the future, Collins said.
The UW center was also contributing research to help structure Wisconsin's ABLE account — a savings account for people with disabilities that the state is in the process of establishing.
The UW center was launched with a five-year grant for $12 million. The grant was renewed in 2024 with another five-year grant that was supposed to be for $15 million. About $2.3 million of that has been spent, but with the termination there will be no reports or final studies, Collins said.
Altman of Social Security Works said research has been integral to the Social Security system from when it was established in the Great Depression, spearheaded in part by people with ties to UW-Madison.
'They've always done research to determine how the program should be structured, what the needs of the American people are, how economic security can be improved and what other countries are doing,' Altman said. 'You have to be informed to have legislation that will work and have administration that will work.'
The Feb. 21 Social Security Administration press release announcing the termination of the research consortium said the research center agreements 'included a focus on research addressing DEI in Social Security, retirement, and disability policy' and that ending them was in line with ending 'fraudulent and wasteful' initiatives.
'The reality is that Social Security is gender neutral, racially neutral,' Altman said. Nevertheless, she said, various social differences are important in understanding how disparate impacts might affect the long-term operation of the program. For example, an accurate projection for the program's resources and ability to pay benefits in the future requires considering the differing labor force participation rates of men and women.
Altman said contrary to the claims of the Trump administration, its actions with the Social Security Administration are 'the opposite of rooting out waste, because it's creating it.'
Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can you pass this quiz on Social Security, savings and debt? Most Americans could not.
If you think you are financially literate, then try to answer this question: How much of your healthcare expenses do Medicare and other government programs cover in retirement? Over 90%? About two-thirds? Or about half? If you chose 'about two-thirds,' you're correct, and you're in the minority. Only about one in four Americans answered that question right on a financial literacy quiz, completed online in January by 3,371 consumers. Overall, Americans got correct answers on just under half of the quiz questions. The findings come from the 2025 Personal Finance Index, published in late May by the TIAA Institute and the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center. Each of the 28 questions covers a basic concept of financial literacy: Saving and investing, borrowing and managing debt, spending money and comprehending financial risk. In a financially literate society, the quizmasters say, most of us would know most of the answers. Yet, only 16% of quiz-takers got 22 or more of the 28 questions right. The average test-taker knew about half of the answers. 'In a capitalist economy, when human beings are responsible for managing their own finances, including their own lifestyle in retirement, a certain amount of financial knowledge is assumed,' said Michael Finke, professor of wealth management at the American College of Financial Services. 'And people who don't have financial knowledge are vulnerable.' The Personal Finance Index and attendant quiz have been offered annually since 2017. The results suggest that Americans aren't making much progress in financial literacy. In the best year, 2020, quiz-takers answered 52% of the questions correctly. The results matter 'because the lack of financial awareness is what holds people back from either building wealth or getting out of a cycle of debt,' said Caleb Silver, editor in chief of Investopedia, the financial journalism site. Financial literacy runs low, according to Silver and others, because most Americans don't learn much in school about saving, investing or managing debt. The next generation may do better. More than two-thirds of states now require personal finance classes for high school graduation, compared with fewer than half of states in 2022, according to the Council for Economic Education. The Personal Finance Index quiz measures literacy in eight subjects. The share of correct answers in 2025 ranged from a high of 59%, on the subject of borrowing, to a low of 36%, in the area of comprehending risk. Test-takers showed greater knowledge on the basics of saving, and less literacy on insurance and investing. If you don't understand the basics of managing debt, then you might not know that a credit card balance with a 20% interest rate costs the borrower more over time than a balance with a 10% rate. If you aren't financially literate on investing, then you might not appreciate the power of compound interest in building retirement savings over multiple decades. 'How much of your paycheck to save for retirement: This is an incredibly important decision that can have a huge impact on the standard of living that you have in retirement,' Finke said. Nothing flummoxed the quiz-takers more than risk, a set of questions that covered uncertain financial outcomes. Here is a sample question about risk: There's a 50/50 chance that Malik's car will need engine repairs within the next six months, which would cost $600. At the same time, there is a 10% chance that he will need to replace the air conditioning unit in his house, which would cost $4,000. Which poses the greater financial risk for Malik? The air conditioning replacement? The car repair? Or is there no way to tell? To get the correct answer, you multiply the cost of each scenario by its probability. As it turns out, the A/C replacement poses the greater risk. One-third of quiz-takers figured that out. 'It's a very simple scenario, but there's a lot going on there,' said Surya Kolluri, head of the nonprofit TIAA Institute. Here are some other questions from the Personal Finance Index quiz. Test your financial literacy! Latisha plans to start saving for retirement by setting aside $2,000 this year. Her employer offers a 401(k) plan and fully matches a worker's contributions up to $5,000 each year. Under which scenario does Latisha have the largest amount in retirement savings at year-end? A) She contributes $2,000 to the 401(k) plan and invests the money in a mutual fund that earns a 5% return during the year. B) She contributes $2,000 to an IRA, or Individual Retirement Account, and invests the money in a mutual fund that earns a 5% return. C) It doesn't matter: She will have the same amount of year-end savings either way. Answer: A. Anna saves $500 each year for 10 years and then stops saving additional money. At the same time, Charlie saves nothing for 10 years but then receives a $5,000 gift, which he decides to save. If both Anna and Charlie earn a 5% return each year, who will have more savings after 20 years? A) Anna B) Charlie C) Anna and Charlie will have the same amount Answer: A. Which statement about Social Security is false? A) The amount someone receives in Social Security benefits depends upon his/her earnings during the last two years of full-time employment. B) A worker receives Social Security benefit payments if he/she becomes disabled before retiring. C) Social Security benefit payments will continue as long as an individual is alive, no matter how long he/she lives. Answer: A. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Can you pass this financial literacy quiz? Most Americans could not. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
34 minutes ago
- USA Today
Can you pass this quiz on Social Security, savings and debt? Most Americans could not.
Can you pass this quiz on Social Security, savings and debt? Most Americans could not. Show Caption Hide Caption How are tariffs and your 401(k) retirement savings intertwined? Experts say a rise in tariffs can lead to several factors that impact your retirement savings. If you think you are financially literate, then try to answer this question: How much of your healthcare expenses do Medicare and other government programs cover in retirement? Over 90%? About two-thirds? Or about half? If you chose 'about two-thirds,' you're correct, and you're in the minority. Only about one in four Americans answered that question right on a financial literacy quiz, completed online in January by 3,371 consumers. Overall, Americans got correct answers on just under half of the quiz questions. The findings come from the 2025 Personal Finance Index, published in late May by the TIAA Institute and the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center. Each of the 28 questions covers a basic concept of financial literacy: Saving and investing, borrowing and managing debt, spending money and comprehending financial risk. Most Americans don't pass this financial literacy quiz In a financially literate society, the quizmasters say, most of us would know most of the answers. Yet, only 16% of quiz-takers got 22 or more of the 28 questions right. The average test-taker knew about half of the answers. 'In a capitalist economy, when human beings are responsible for managing their own finances, including their own lifestyle in retirement, a certain amount of financial knowledge is assumed,' said Michael Finke, professor of wealth management at the American College of Financial Services. 'And people who don't have financial knowledge are vulnerable.' The Personal Finance Index and attendant quiz have been offered annually since 2017. The results suggest that Americans aren't making much progress in financial literacy. In the best year, 2020, quiz-takers answered 52% of the questions correctly. The results matter 'because the lack of financial awareness is what holds people back from either building wealth or getting out of a cycle of debt,' said Caleb Silver, editor in chief of Investopedia, the financial journalism site. Financial literacy runs low, according to Silver and others, because most Americans don't learn much in school about saving, investing or managing debt. The next generation may do better. More than two-thirds of states now require personal finance classes for high school graduation, compared with fewer than half of states in 2022, according to the Council for Economic Education. Financial literacy: We know a lot about debt . . . The Personal Finance Index quiz measures literacy in eight subjects. The share of correct answers in 2025 ranged from a high of 59%, on the subject of borrowing, to a low of 36%, in the area of comprehending risk. Test-takers showed greater knowledge on the basics of saving, and less literacy on insurance and investing. If you don't understand the basics of managing debt, then you might not know that a credit card balance with a 20% interest rate costs the borrower more over time than a balance with a 10% rate. If you aren't financially literate on investing, then you might not appreciate the power of compound interest in building retirement savings over multiple decades. 'How much of your paycheck to save for retirement: This is an incredibly important decision that can have a huge impact on the standard of living that you have in retirement,' Finke said. . . . And not a lot about risk Nothing flummoxed the quiz-takers more than risk, a set of questions that covered uncertain financial outcomes. Here is a sample question about risk: There's a 50/50 chance that Malik's car will need engine repairs within the next six months, which would cost $600. At the same time, there is a 10% chance that he will need to replace the air conditioning unit in his house, which would cost $4,000. Which poses the greater financial risk for Malik? The air conditioning replacement? The car repair? Or is there no way to tell? To get the correct answer, you multiply the cost of each scenario by its probability. As it turns out, the A/C replacement poses the greater risk. One-third of quiz-takers figured that out. 'It's a very simple scenario, but there's a lot going on there,' said Surya Kolluri, head of the nonprofit TIAA Institute. Test your knowledge on these financial literacy questions Here are some other questions from the Personal Finance Index quiz. Test your financial literacy! Latisha plans to start saving for retirement by setting aside $2,000 this year. Her employer offers a 401(k) plan and fully matches a worker's contributions up to $5,000 each year. Under which scenario does Latisha have the largest amount in retirement savings at year-end? A) She contributes $2,000 to the 401(k) plan and invests the money in a mutual fund that earns a 5% return during the year. B) She contributes $2,000 to an IRA, or Individual Retirement Account, and invests the money in a mutual fund that earns a 5% return. C) It doesn't matter: She will have the same amount of year-end savings either way. Answer: A. Anna saves $500 each year for 10 years and then stops saving additional money. At the same time, Charlie saves nothing for 10 years but then receives a $5,000 gift, which he decides to save. If both Anna and Charlie earn a 5% return each year, who will have more savings after 20 years? A) Anna B) Charlie C) Anna and Charlie will have the same amount Answer: A. Which statement about Social Security is false? A) The amount someone receives in Social Security benefits depends upon his/her earnings during the last two years of full-time employment. B) A worker receives Social Security benefit payments if he/she becomes disabled before retiring. C) Social Security benefit payments will continue as long as an individual is alive, no matter how long he/she lives. Answer: A.
Politico
43 minutes ago
- Politico
Inside the MAGA vs. hawk battle to sway Trump on bombing Iran
An influential group of GOP hawks has launched a behind-the-scenes lobbying offensive pressing President Donald Trump to not only back off his administration's quest for a nuclear deal with Iran, but greenlight an attack on Tehran by Israel. The campaign is raising alarms among Trump and his allies, who have launched a counteroffensive to keep the president's diplomacy on track. During a private lunch with the president at the White House last Wednesday, conservative talk show host Mark Levin told Trump that Iran was days away from building a nuclear weapon, an argument Trump's own intelligence team has told the president is not accurate, according to an intelligence official as well as another Trump ally familiar with the matter. Levin urged Trump to allow the Israeli government to strike Iranian nuclear sites, which Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would torpedo the diplomacy. Levin has been waging a public war against Trump's longtime friend and special envoy leading talks, Steve Witkoff, who also attended the meeting. They were joined by GOP megadonor Ike Perlmutter, the onetime Marvel Entertainment executive who is friendly with Witkoff. On a separate front, MAGA loyalists have been warily eyeing Rupert Murdoch's papers, particularly the New York Post, as they've savaged Witkoff, suggesting at one point that he's a mouthpiece for Qatar. The allegations have infuriated some in Trump's inner circle, who see them as an effort to undercut the talks. Murdoch has, meanwhile, privately complained to confidants about Witkoff's effort, according to a person familiar with the matter. 'They're trying to push the president to make a decision that's not what he wants,' a senior administration official told POLITICO. This person, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak freely. 'There's clearly a lobby for war with Iran vs. those who are more aligned with the president, that know he is the one that has been able to bring them to the negotiating table.' The lobbying has triggered a coordinated effort to defend Trump and Witkoff's diplomatic posture. Hours after Levin's meeting with Trump, Tucker Carlson, who had clearly been alerted to the gathering by someone familiar with what happened, took to X to accuse Levin of trying to bully the U.S. into war. 'There is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb, or has plans to. None,' Carlson tweeted. 'So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction? To distract you from the real goal, which is regime change — young Americans heading back to the Middle East to topple yet another government.' The private lobbying and public sniping highlight a vast breach in the GOP over U.S. foreign policy just months into Trump's first term. While many hawkish members of the old guard have viewed Witkoff's diplomatic effort with skepticism, the more restrained wing of the party has been adamant about defusing tensions with Tehran. In the middle of the tug-of-war is Trump, who ran on a promise of ending what his followers see as endless U.S. foreign adventurism and war. Some Trump allies believe the president will stand his ground — and even predict the pressure tactics are starting to grate on him. 'Levin and Murdoch are all over Trump all the time — I actually think they hurt their case because I know Trump,' said one longtime Trump confidant. 'Once he's kind of made his mind up, you can come at it later from a different angle, but you keep pressing, he digs in.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO the president 'has always been willing to listen to a wide range of voices on every issue — but ultimately, he is the final decision maker.' 'With respect to Iran, President Trump has made his own opinion clear: he would like to pursue diplomacy and make a deal, but IF Iran makes a deal impossible, President Trump has other options on the table,' she added. Trump sounded a note of skepticism about a potential deal while speaking to reporters Monday afternoon. While noting that his administration will engage with Iran for their latest talks on Thursday, Trump said the Iranians are 'just asking for things that you cannot do.' 'They do not want to give up what they have to give up — you know what that is: They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment,' he said. 'We want just the opposite. And so far they are not there. I hate to say that because the alternative is a very, very dire one.' While both camps have a tendency to frame their positions as binary choices — a deal or war, an attack on Iran's program or a guaranteed Iranian nuclear weapon — the reality is less clear. If the nuclear talks fail, that would increase the likelihood that the U.S., Israel or both would feel compelled to act militarily. But the U.S. could also more immediately look to ratchet up economic pressure on Tehran to see if it might eventually return to talks, a strategy some Republicans are already pushing privately. As for those favoring a strike on Iran's facilities, many military and nuclear experts say that U.S.-Israeli action would probably only temporarily set back Iran's program rather than completely destroy it. Other MAGA figures, from Charlie Kirk to activist Jack Posobiec, have used their public profiles to bolster the case for diplomacy. They're encouraging Trump to stick to his negotiations and resist what they fear could be an Israeli-led sleepwalk into war. Vice President JD Vance, perhaps the most powerful leader of the anti-war faction of the party — and who has close ties with many online MAGA influencers — has also weighed in. Just after Levin's meeting with Trump, he came to Witkoff's defense in a podcast with Theo Von. Witkoff recently gave Iran a proposal for a deal that would allow Tehran to enrich uranium at low levels but eventually become part of a regional enrichment consortium. Iran has made clear it will not abandon its domestic enrichment capability, while Trump has set that as a red line. That's left Witkoff to try to bridge the gap with a solution, which Iran has not yet formally responded to. 'It is a very creative proposal that allows both sides to claim a win,' a senior administration official said. Witkoff will meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi for a sixth round of talks on Friday or Sunday. Advocates for military action or ratcheting up significant pressure on Iran say this is the best opportunity in years to strike Iran after Israeli attacks weakened its regional proxies. Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank and a fierce critic of Iran's government, said the public debate has weakened the perception that the U.S. would be prepared to strike or back Israel if necessary. 'Those who are advocating that there be no credible military threat are making it more likely there'll be a bad deal, and more likely that the Israelis will be forced to strike,' he said. Trump allies and administration officials wary of military action have been seeing stories in some conservative media that they privately discount as plants by hawks and other pro-military, Israel-aligned groups. The officials spent much of last week working to discredit a Fox News story about an Austrian intelligence agency report that suggested Iran has grand plans to develop nuclear weapons that will help it assert dominance in the region. The posturing also comes on the heels of the latest assessment by the U.N.'s nuclear energy watchdog, IAEA, which has concluded that Tehran has increased its stockpile of 'near-bomb uranium' over the past three months. That's given Tehran the ability to fuel 'roughly 10 weapons, up from around five or six' when Trump took office, according to the New York Times. U.S. intelligence has pegged Iran's so-called breakout time — the amount of time it needs to produce enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon — at one to two weeks, U.S. officials say. But officials also continue to assess that Iran has not made the decision to actively go for a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to pursue the bomb, experts and diplomats disagree how long it would take to weaponize it, ranging from a few months to over a year. There's one big wildcard in all of this: People on both sides of the debate aren't sure what Trump will do. One person noted that the president has been so firm in his beliefs that he fired Michael Waltz as national security adviser in part because he'd been coordinating with the Israelis for an Iran offensive. Still, even among those pressing for diplomacy, there is concern about the president's penchant for changing his mind depending on who he's last spoken to. There's a fear Trump — who has threatened to bomb Iran if they don't come to heel — could act on rhetoric many largely deem negotiating bravado. '[Trump is] very solid in what he wants and letting Witkoff do his thing,' said one person close to the talks. 'But depending on who he hears from, he may move a little bit.' Some of the hawks in and around the lobbying effort, meanwhile, say that Trump has made clear that he is prepared to use military force if necessary. Pursuing diplomacy at any cost, they say, is a misreading of what he wants. 'The good news is Donald Trump is … not an isolationist. He's bombed Yemen, he's taken out [IRGC leader Qasem] Soleimani and [ISIS leader Abu Bakr al] Baghdadi. He's done what he needs to do. But [isolationism] is a force that continues to try pressuring him,' Levin said during a recent episode. In some ways, the push and pull with Israel has been going on for months. Israel has been privately imploring the administration to join them to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. But Trump has headed off that pressure. When Ron Dermer, Israel's strategic affairs minister and a confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, came to Washington in early May, Trump asked him to prevent Israel from attacking Iran while Trump was on his Middle East swing, according to one Trump ally and one U.S. official familiar with the conversations. The president stayed another attempt again in late May. Israeli officials have told the Trump administration that they believe they have a limited window to strike. Trump's decision to favor diplomacy over military action — at least for now — also highlights the growing rift between Washington and Israel. Trump's pro-Israel actions from his first term have given him cover from attacks from Netanyahu or others who would suggest he is not pro-Israel enough. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. embassy there, recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, among other actions. But now the two close allies are at odds over Iran. Even before the dispute over strategy, Israelis have expressed disappointment in the U.S. decision to end its campaign on the Iran-backed Houthis without notifying the Jewish nation, and bypassing a visit to Israel on the president's Middle East swing. 'The president is not going to support war… But I'm telling you, these guys won't take no for an answer,' said a longtime Trump ally. 'This is why there's a breach in the Bibi-President Trump relationship. ... Israel isn't reading the room. The MAGA movement doesn't support military operations.'
