Andy Ogles supports a Republican budget plan that would raise the full Social Security retirement age from 67 to 69 between 2026 and 2033, which would cut benefits by about 13% for future retirees. He also voted for Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which reduces the amount of federal tax revenue that goes into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds—speeding up when they could run out of money, possibly by 2032 instead of 2033. Together, these policies would shrink benefits, weaken Social Security’s finances, and make retirement harder for people who rely on it most, especially those in physically demanding jobs who can’t easily delay retirement.
Andy Ogles is an official member of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the House GOP caucus that publishes the conference’s budget blueprints. (ogles.house.gov)
The RSC’s FY2025 budget plan proposes raising Social Security’s full retirement age from 67 to 69 over 2026–2033 (three months per year), as described by RSC Budget Chair Rep. Ben Cline and reported by Roll Call; independent analyses summarize the same schedule. (rollcall.com)
Raising the full retirement age functions as an across-the-board benefit cut; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that moving the FRA to 69 would cut benefits by about 13% for affected retirees, and nonpartisan analysts at CBPP note each one-year FRA increase is roughly a 7% cut. (budget.senate.gov)
Beyond the age hike, the RSC budget pursues additional benefit-reduction policies (for example, changing the Primary Insurance Amount formula and moving toward a “flat benefit”), which would lower future payments for many workers. (democrats-budget.house.gov)
CBO’s analysis (as summarized by the House Budget Committee minority) indicates that raising the FRA to 69 does not fix solvency and would still leave the trust fund facing shortfalls. (democrats-budget.house.gov)
On July 3, 2025, the House agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) 218–214; only two Republicans (Massie and Fitzpatrick) voted “No,” confirming that Republican Rep. Andy Ogles voted “Yes.” (congress.gov)
The law did not eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits as claimed; instead, it created a new, temporary deduction for seniors (e.g., $6,000 for those 65+), reducing the amount of Social Security benefits subject to federal income tax. (apnews.com)
By statute, a significant share of federal income taxes collected on Social Security benefits is deposited directly into the Social Security trust funds (OASI/DI), with taxes on up to 50% of benefits credited to OASI/DI and the additional portion (up to 85%) credited to Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund—so reducing this taxation reduces dedicated trust-fund income. (ssa.gov)
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reduce taxation of benefits by roughly $30 billion per year and thereby accelerate insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds by about one year (to 2032). (crfb.org)
CRFB also notes the law can indirectly reduce payroll-tax collection by encouraging compensation to shift from taxable wages to forms of income made newly non-taxable by the bill, further weakening dedicated revenues. (crfb.org)
The 2025 Trustees’ projections (as summarized by CRFB and SSA) show the OASI trust fund facing insolvency around 2033 under prior law—triggering an automatic across-the-board cut of roughly 23% absent action—while CRFB estimates the new law advances the insolvency date to 2032, making the eventual cut deeper and earlier. (crfb.org)
Raising the full retirement age to 69 imposes an additional cut of roughly 13% on affected cohorts; combined with reduced trust-fund revenues from the new law, this both lowers promised benefits and weakens the program’s finances. (budget.senate.gov)
Analysts warn these benefit cuts are especially harmful to workers in physically demanding jobs who are least able to delay retirement, a concern highlighted in reviews of the RSC budget’s effects. (democrats-budget.house.gov)
Reducing COLAs or altering the benefit formula—other approaches embedded in the RSC agenda—would further erode benefit adequacy over time. (cbpp.org)