¶ Overview
- Huizenga voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs and capping the cost of insulin. Over the course of his time in Congress, Huizenga has accepted $78,737 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical/health products industry.
- In 2025, Huizenga promised that Republicans had no intention of cutting Medicare, but then he voted for House Republicans’ reconciliation bill, which would trigger nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts, absent future congressional action. He was also a member of the Republican Study Committee, which has advocated for raising the retirement age and turning Medicare into a voucher system. Earlier in his career in Congress, Huizenga also defended proposals that sought to turn Medicare into a premium support system. Huizenga even once called to block grant Medicare.
- Huizenga has also expressed support for raising the Social Security retirement age. In 2013, he said congress needed to reexamine Social Security, particularly “who qualifies and at what level they qualify.” In 2024, he pushed for a fiscal commission to review federal spending that advocates worried could threaten Social Security by setting up a process that could ram through drastic cuts to programs without amendment or full public debate. Huizenga has also defended Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) while promising that Republicans would not touch Social Security even as DOGE was weakening Americans’ ability to access the Social Security Administration. More than 174,000 Michiganders in the 4th congressional district rely on Social Security benefits.
¶ Huizenga Voted Against Lowering Prescription Drug Costs For Seniors And Capping The Cost Of Insulin
2022: Huizenga VOTED AGAINST THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, WHICH INCLUDED PROVISIONS TO NEGOTIATE DRUG PRICES AND CAP THE COST OF INSULIN
August 2022: Huizenga Voted Against The Inflation Reduction Act. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Huizenga voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, “comprising a package of climate, tax and health care provisions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
¶ During His Time In Congress, Huizenga Has Accepted More Than $78,000 In Campaign Contributions From The Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry
2011-2024: Huizenga Accepted $78,737 In Campaign Contributions From The Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Industry. According to Open Secrets, from 2011-2024, Rep. Bill Huizenga’s campaign has received $78,737 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health products industry. [Open Secrets, Pharmaceuticals/Health Products Money to Congress, Viewed 4/22/26]
¶ The Inflation Reduction Act Lowered Prescription Drug Costs For Michigan Seniors
The Inflation Reduction Act Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Prices For Certain Prescription Drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Negotiations are underway between HHS and the participating drug companies of the first 10 prescription drugs selected for negotiation in the first cycle of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. The first 10 drugs selected treat conditions such as blood clots, diabetes, heart disease, heart failure, autoimmune diseases, and chronic kidney disease." [U.S. Health and Human Services, Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022, Viewed 7/1/24]
The Inflation Reduction Act Required Drug Companies To Pay A Rebate To Medicare If They Raised Prices Faster Than The Rate Of Inflation. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Allowing Medicare to negotiate with participating drug companies to get lower drug prices for certain drugs covered under Medicare Beginning negotiations with the participating drug companies that manufacture all 10 drugs selected for the first cycle of negotiations" [U.S. Health and Human Services, Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022, Viewed 7/1/24]
The Inflation Reduction Act Capped Insulin Prices At $35 Per Monthly Prescription. According to Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation, “Effective January 1, 2023, out-of-pocket costs for insulin are capped at $35 per monthly prescription among Medicare Part D enrollees under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). A similar cap takes effect in Medicare Part B on July 1, 2023. An estimated 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who use insulin would have saved $734 million in Part D and $27 million in Part B if these caps had been in effect in 2020.” [Office Of The Assistant Secretary For Planning And Evaluation, 1/24/23]
- University Of Wisconsin-Madison School Of Public Health: “The Inflation Reduction Act $35 Cap On Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Insulin Led To Increases In The Total Number Of Filled Insulin Prescriptions For Medicare Beneficiaries.” According to University of Wisconsin-Madison School Of Public Health, “The Inflation Reduction Act $35 cap on out-of-pocket costs for insulin led to increases in the total number of filled insulin prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics.” [University of Wisconsin-Madison School Of Public Health, 7/24/23]
¶ The Inflation Reduction Act Benefited More Than 348,000 Michigan Medicare Enrollees Who Took Prescription Drugs Selected For Price Negotiation
More Than 348,000 Michigan Medicare Enrollees Took Prescription Drugs That Had Been Selected For Price Negotiation Made Possible By The Inflation Reduction Act.
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Michigan, Viewed 4/22/26]
¶ 2019: huizenga voted against allowing medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug costs
2019: Huizenga Voted Against The House Drug Price Negotiation Bill For Medicare Programs. In December 2019, Huizenga voted against a motion that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “allow the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate prices for certain drugs under Medicare programs and would make a number of modifications to Medicare programs related to drug costs and plan benefits.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230-192. [House Vote 682, 12/12/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.3]
- The Bill Allowed HHS To Negotiate The Prices Of Prescription Drugs Covered By Medicare And Penalize Companies That Don’t Comply. According to Vox, “Under current law, the Health and Human Services secretary is barred from engaging in negotiations for prescription drugs covered by Medicare […] The final bill enables the HHS secretary to negotiate the prices of as many as 250 drugs annually. Additionally, it would penalize companies that do not negotiate with HHS with a fine starting at 65 percent of a drug’s gross sales from the prior year. For every quarter that the company does not engage, the penalty goes up by 10 percentage points, until it hits 95 percent of a drug’s gross sales.” [Vox, 12/12/19]
- The Bill Required Drugmakers To Issue Rebates To The Treasury If They Raised The Prices For Medicare Drugs Faster Than The Rate Of Inflation. According to Vox, “The proposal would also address pricing hikes that have been applied to different drugs covered by Medicare Parts B and D, requiring companies to either undo any increases that surpass the rate of inflation, or rebate the entirety of those hikes since 2016 to the Treasury. An amendment from Jayapal would also make sure that people covered by private plans could obtain rebates as well. Additionally, the bill would cap out-of-pocket prescription drugs costs for those covered by Medicare Part D to $2,000 annually. Currently, there is no cap.” [Vox, 12/12/19]
¶ Huizenga voted against capping the cost of insulin
2022: Huizenga Voted Against The Affordable Insulin Now Act, Which Required Private Insurances And Medicare To Cover Certain Insulin Products, Prohibit Deductibles For Insulin, And Cap Cost-Sharing For Such Insulin Products Beginning In 2023. In March 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Huizenga voted against the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would “require private health insurance and Medicare to cover certain insulin products and limit cost-sharing requirements for such products for plans beginning in 2023. Specifically, it would require private insurance plans to cover at least one of each dosage form of each type of insulin, such as short-acting, long-acting and premixed insulin; prohibit the plans from applying a deductible for the insulin products; and cap cost-sharing for the insulin products at the lesser of $35 or 25 percent of the plan's negotiated price for the product per 30-day supply. For Medicare plans, it would similarly prohibit the application of a deductible for covered insulin products and cap copayments at $35 per 30-day supply.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 232-193, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The bill was passed by the Senate and both chambers are resolving differences. The bill was turned into the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 and that version ultimately became law. [House Vote 102, 3/31/22; Congressional Quarterly, 3/31/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6833]
- The Measure Would Cap Insulin Costs At Either $35 Per Month Or 25% Of A Health Insurance Plan’s Negotiated Costs Beginning In 2023. According to NPR, “The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan’s negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation would take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
- According To The Health Care Cost Institute, Insulin Prices Doubled Between 2012 And 2016. According to NPR, “Advocates of the legislation point to data from the Health Care Cost Institute, an independent nonprofit that studies health care prices, which shows prices for insulin doubled between 2012 and 2016.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
¶ Huizenga Promised Republicans Had No Intention Of Cutting Medicare, Then He Voted To Cut Medicare
¶ huizenga promised trump had no intention of cutting medicare benefits
Huizenga Promised President Trump Had No Intention Of Cutting Social Security Or Medicare Benefits. According to an interview Rep. Bill Huizenga gave on All Talk with Kevin Dietz, "HOST: What is your reaction to the budget framework? Democrats are out there saying this is going to go after, you know, Medicaid, Medicare, many of the possibly Social Security. You know , they're putting that fear out there. HUIZENGA: Yeah, and well Kevin, you hit the nail on the head , they're putting the fear out there , not facts. It's all fear. And in fact, I was with President Trump on Tuesday with a group that was concerned about the frankly, the Senate, the Senate not being fiscally conservative enough in that proposal. And and that was something he made very, very clear. We are not touching Social Security, which is on its own program by the way, anyway. And then Medicare and Medicaid. And, you know, the interesting thing is, is that Medicare is a joint, uh, a joint state and federal program. And, you know, at some point, the state is going to be involved in deciding who is going to get covered and who isn't going to get covered as well. But, you know, he was very, very clear to all of us that he has no intention and will not allow that those benefits getting cut." [All Talk with Kevin Dietz, 4/11/25] (audio)
¶ Huizenga voted for house republicans’ reconciliation bill, which would trigger $500 billion in medicare cuts, absent future congressional action
May 2025: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "Trump And GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts To Medicare, CBO Says" [Washington Post, 5/21/25]
- Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The House Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Trigger Nearly $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare. According to a letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to Rep. Brendan Boyle, "Today the Congressional Budget Office transmitted an estimate of the budgetary effects of the 2025 reconciliation bill, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on May 18, 2025. 1 CBO has not yet completed estimates of the effects of interactions among the titles of the legislation. This letter responds to your questions concerning the sequestration (the cancellation of budgetary resources) in accordance with the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 (S-PAYGO) that would occur if an enacted bill raised deficits by $2.3 trillion over 10 years. Under S-PAYGO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to maintain 5- and 10-year scorecards that it updates with the estimated cumulative changes in revenues and outlays generated by newly enacted legislation. […] The 4 percent maximum reduction in Medicare spending would apply to sequestration orders for years after 2026. If OMB ordered a sequestration of $230 billion for each year through 2034, the ordered reductions in Medicare spending would increase to about $75 billion in 2034 and would total roughly $490 billion over the 2027–2034 period." [Letter to Rep. Brendan Boyle – Congressional Budget Office, 5/20/25]
July 2025: Huizenga Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Million In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
¶ Huizenga Claimed The Big Beautiful Bill Was A “Massive Win” For The United States
Huizenga Celebrated Passage Of The One Big Beautiful Bill, Claiming It Was A “Massive Win” For America. According to a press release from Rep. Bill Huizenga, “Today, Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-MI) released the following statement after voting in support the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House by a vote of 218-214. The One Big Beautiful Bill will now head to President Trump’s desk to be signed into law. ‘Today, Congress delivered on the promises President Trump and House Republicans made to the American people to stop the largest tax increase in our nation’s history. ‘The One Big Beautiful Bill will help Americans across all walks of life by making tax cuts permanent and increasing take home pay as much as $7,500 through provisions such as no tax on tips and no tax on overtime. ‘Additionally, by increasing tax breaks for seniors, strengthening the child tax credit for families, making made-in-America car loan interest tax deductible, and addressing inflation with the largest mandatory spending reduction ever, the Big Beautiful Bill will make everyday life more affordable. ‘Importantly, this bill makes significant progress to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from both SNAP and Medicaid by implementing work requirements for able-bodied individuals without dependents. These commonsense reforms will preserve these important safety net programs for those who need it most — namely, low-income mothers, children, the elderly, and disabled Americans. ‘The One Big Beautiful Bill will supercharge Michigan’s economy by boosting manufacturing, helping farmers, modernizing our military, and unleashing American energy. ‘Lastly, the One Big Beautiful Bill provides critical resources to ensure our border remains secure by finishing the wall and ensuring we have the law enforcement manpower we need to keep our nation safe. ‘I look forward to President Trump signing this legislation, delivering a massive win for hardworking Americans, and putting America back on track for an age of prosperity!’" [Press Release – Rep. Bill Huizenga, 7/3/25]
¶ huizenga was a member of the republican study committee, which has proposed turning medicare into a voucher system
As Of January 2025, Huizenga Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee.
[Republican Study Committee Website via Wayback Machine, “Membership,” Viewed 1/23/25 via archive.org]
¶ The Republican Study Committee Budget Has Proposed Raising Health Care Costs For Seniors By Switching To A “Premium Support” System
The Republican Study Committee’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposed A “Premium Support” Model For Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, "The RSC budget would implement a premium support model where private, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans would compete with a federal Medicare plan (the ‘Fed Plan’) that would offer the traditional Medicare benefits received through Part A, B, and D. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans provide the same services as Medicare but are administered by private health insurance providers. Under this plan, Medicare’s trust funds would be merged into a singular fund that would be responsible for paying premium support subsidies to cover the vast majority of their premium costs. This new singular trust fund would be funded with revenues from existing payroll taxes, Part B premiums, and Part B and D cost sharing—which would help ensure continued traditional Medicare benefits remain available. This framework would ensure seniors, whether they choose a private plan or the Fed Plan, receive more affordable, high-quality coverage." [Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget Proposal, 3/20/24]
The Republican Study Committee’s Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Proposed A “Premium Support” Model For Medicare Beneficiaries. According to Roll Call, "The plan offered by the 175-member Republican Study Committee would gradually raise the age at which future retirees can start claiming full Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, a politically fraught proposal that’s all but certain to appear in Democratic campaign ads. The document also proposes a ‘premium support’ plan that would subsidize private insurance options that compete with traditional Medicare. That would be similar to budget plans proposed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., during his tenure in Congress that were panned by Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump." [Roll Call, 6/14/23]
Republicans’ Proposal To Switch To A Medicare “Premium Support” System Would Result In Most Beneficiaries Paying More For Health Care Than They Do Under Current Laws. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priority, "Under premium support, Medicare would make a fixed-dollar payment (often called a voucher) for each beneficiary to defray part of the cost of health insurance — either through a private plan or a form of traditional Medicare. The beneficiary’s premium would equal the difference between the voucher amount and the cost of the plan that he or she selected. Premium support would apply to all new beneficiaries starting in 2024 and to any other beneficiaries who chose to participate. Unlike the current system, in which Part B premiums are generally the same for all beneficiaries, premiums under the House GOP plan would vary by region and by plan. Although the GOP plan lacks the details to assess its impact on beneficiaries, most beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare would pay more than under current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office. " [Center on Budget and Policy Priority, 7/26/16]
¶ huizenga has defended proposals to turn medicare into a voucher system
2016: Huizenga Defended A Republican Plan To Turn Medicare Into A Premium Support System. According to the Detroit News, "House Republicans in June finalized a health care reform proposal as part of their Better Way agenda that would involve gradually transforming Medicare from a single-payer federal program into a system of ‘premium supports,’ where seniors could receive a set amount of money to buy or offset the cost of health insurance - either private insurance or traditional Medicare. […] Republicans stress that their plan would offer seniors more choice and ensure no disruptions in the Medicare program for those in or near retirement, while helping reign in costs and reduce waste. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, says incremental changes are needed for those further away from retirement to preserve Medicare. ‘Millions of Americans, just like my own mom, count on Medicare to provide access to health care when they retire,’ Huizenga said. ‘I'm 47. People in my generation and my children's generation should be able to choose from competing plans in addition to Medicare, which is precisely what House Republicans have proposed.’" [Detroit News, 11/29/16]
2011: Huizenga Defended A Plan Where Future Retirees Under 55 Years-Of-Age Would Choose From Competing Private Insurance Plans Approved By Medicare For Insurance. According to an op-ed from Rep. Bill Huizenga in the Muskegon Chroncile via MLive, "The third and most important step is entitlement reform. House Republicans are the only ones to offer a viable solution to address our entitlements. Now, if you're 55 and older: Your benefits will not change, and you can stop reading here. My parents, who are in their 80s, will not see any change. The time has come that we must have a fact-based conversation about modernizing Medicare for our generation and our children's and grandchildren's. The simple truth is, the current path of Medicare is unsustainable. […] That's why I support the only plan that preserves and protects Medicare for both this generation and the next. Facts to consider about the House plan: · Benefits for anyone 55 years or older will not be affected. · Future retirees (now 54 years old or younger) will select from competing private insurance plans approved by Medicare that will provide guaranteed coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs. · Medicare beneficiaries will be able to choose a plan the same way members of Congress and many federal employees do. · Assistance for lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks will be provided. ·The plan stops the $500-billion raid on Medicare from the president's health care law. Any current-law Medicare savings must go to saving Medicare." [Rep. Bill Huizenga Op-Ed – Muskegon Chronicle via MLive, 8/5/11]
¶ huizenga has even called to block grant medicare
2013: Huizenga Floated The Idea Of Block Granting Medicare And Handing Some Of The Reins Over To The States. According to the Holland Sentinel, "Defense, transportation and government operations are, of course, on the list, but unsurprisingly entitlements (which make up more than 60 percent of the federal budget) are top of the Republican lawmaker's list. ‘The entitlement side is really the long-term driver behind our debts,’ Huizenga said. ‘We have got to wrestle this dragon down to the ground.’ Social Security should be re-examined, he said - ‘who qualifies and at what level they qualify.’ ‘We have a social and moral obligation to them, and we're not going to change that,’ Huizenga said of those already Social Security-eligible, but those in his generation, or of his children's generation, have time to plan for their retirements with a new Social Security system. ‘How in the world do we continue to make this system continue to work when we have this giant knot of retirees called the baby boomers and fewer and fewer people to pay for them?’ he asked. As for Medicare and Medicaid, Huizenga would hand those reins over to the states, leaving less overhead for the federal government. ‘I think we ought to block grant it to the states,’ he said." [Holland Sentinel, 1/1/13]
¶ Huizenga Supported Raising The Social Security Retirement Age
¶ huizenga was a member of the republican study committee, which has proposed turning medicare into a voucher system
As Of January 2025, Huizenga Was A Member Of The Republican Study Committee.
[Republican Study Committee Website via Wayback Machine, “Membership,” Viewed 1/23/25 via archive.org]
¶ The Republican Study Committee Has Long Advocated For Raising The Social Security Retirement Age
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal Included “Modest Adjustments To The Retirement Age For Future Retirees To Account For Increases In Life Expectancy.” According to the Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal, “For instance, the RSC Budget would make modest changes to the primary insurance amount (PIA) benefit formula for individuals who are not near retirement and earn more than the wealthiest PIA benefit factor. It would also make modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy. Finally, for these individuals, it would limit and phase out auxiliary benefits for high income earners.” [Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget Proposal, 3/20/24]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Plan Included Raising The Age Of Eligibility For Social Security Benefits To 69. According to Roll Call, “The largest bloc of House conservatives offered up a fiscal blueprint Wednesday that promises to balance the federal budget in seven years, make GOP tax cuts permanent, and slash domestic spending. The plan offered by the 175-member Republican Study Committee would gradually raise the age at which future retirees can start claiming full Social Security benefits from 67 to 69, a politically fraught proposal that’s all but certain to appear in Democratic campaign ads. The document also proposes a ‘premium support’ plan that would subsidize private insurance options that compete with traditional Medicare. That would be similar to budget plans proposed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., during his tenure in Congress that were panned by Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump.” [Roll Call, 6/14/23]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Proposal Called For The “Gradual Increase Of The Normal Retirement Age.” According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2023 Budget, “This trend, which will continue to increase financial pressure on Social Security, is a result of the aging U.S. population. To partially address this issue, the full retirement was raised to 67 in 2022 for those born in 1960 and later. The Social Security Reform Act would simply continue the gradual increase of the normal retirement age that current law has set in motion at a rate of three months per year until it is increased by three years for those reaching age 62 in 2040, 18 years from now.” [Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2023 Budget via Wayback Machine, 8/5/22]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Proposal Called To “Reform The Full Retirement Age To Track Life Expectancy.” According to a press release from the Republican Study Committee, “The RSC Budget puts Social Security on a permanent path to solvency without adjusting benefits for any Americans in or near retirement. It would: Increase the minimum benefit up to 40% of average wages for those that worked 40 years or more. • Reform the full retirement age to track life expectancy.” [Press Release – Republican Study Committee, Viewed 11/25/25]
The Republican Study Committee Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Proposal Included Phasing In “An Increase In Eligibility Age To 70” For Social Security. According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2020 Executive Summary, “MAKING SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENT - without reform, will be depleted by 2035, cutting benefits by 25 percent • implements the Social Security Reform Act to achieve long-term sustainable solvency • phases in an increase of the eligibility age to 70 and indexes life expectancy to keep up with increases in longevity ” [Republican Study Committee, “RSC Budget FY 2020: Preserving American Freedom,” Viewed 11/25/25]
¶ The Center For American Progress Estimated That Raising The Retirement Age Would Cost Future Retirees Thousands In Benefits Every Year
According To The Center For American Progress, Raising The Retirement Age Would Cost The Median-Wage Retiree Thousands In Benefits Every Year. According to the Center for American Progress, “One policy that has continually been included in RSC budget proposals for years is an increase to Social Security’s full retirement age (FRA), the age at which seniors become eligible to access Social Security retirement benefits without a financial penalty for retiring early. The FRA is 67 under current law, but the RSC plan would push it back to 69, leading to drastic benefit cuts for a large majority of Americans. […] This higher FRA would cut Social Security benefits. According to Center for American Progress analysis, an FRA of 69 would cut benefits for all new retirees between roughly 12.5 percent and 14.3 percent by the time it is fully phased in. In addition, it would cost a median-wage retiree who earned $70,000 in 2022 and turns 62 in 2034 thousands of dollars every year.” [Center for American Progress, 7/31/24]
- After Receiving Social Security For 10 Years, The Median-Wage Retiree Would Lose Nearly $100,000 In Retirement Benefits. According to the Center for American Progress, “However, the dollar amount of the cut would not be static each year. To account for inflation, Social Security benefits are updated with cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), which the Social Security Administration expects to equal 2.4 percent each year after 2025, according to its intermediate cost projections. After accounting for these COLAs, the median-wage retiree would lose between $46,104 and $99,252 after 10 years of receiving Social Security.” [Center for American Progress, 7/31/24]
¶ 2024: huizenga pushed for a commission to review federal spending that advocates worried could endanger social security
2024: Huizenga Co-Sponsored The Fiscal Commission Act, Which Proposed A Commission To Review Federal Spending And Faced Criticism That It Would Endanger Social Security. According to Newsweek, "The House Budget Committee's advancement of the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023 has ignited a debate over potential Social Security changes. Amid concerns over national debt topping $34 trillion, the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023, H.R. 5779, proposes a bipartisan commission to review federal spending, but it faces strong opposition for allegedly endangering Social Security. Critics, including influential Democrats and advocacy organizations, warn of possible cuts to the program, fueling political confrontation over the future of essential social safety nets. […] The bill, co-sponsored by Representatives Bill Huizenga of Michigan, a Republican, and Scott Peters of California, a Democrat, and supported in the Senate by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Utah Republican Mitt Romney, aims to establish a commission to propose solutions for the national debt and the sustainability of federal trust funds." [Newsweek, 1/19/24]
- Advocacy Groups Opposed Huizenga’s Legislation Because They Argued It Set Up A Process Where A Few Members Of Congress Could Ram Through Drastic Cuts To Programs Like Medicare And Social Security Without Amendment Or Full Public Debate. According to Newsweek, "The perspective is shared by advocacy groups like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and AARP, which argue for regular legislative processes over the commission's expedited approach. According to AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond, the ‘vote by the House Budget Committee sets up a process where seven members of Congress can ram through drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare, without amendment, and without a full public debate. ‘Social Security and Medicare are critical to American families,’ LeaMond said in a statement issued Thursday. ‘Congress should work to strengthen and protect these programs in the full light of day, with public input through the regular legislative process.’" [Newsweek, 1/19/24]
¶ Huizenga PREVIOUSLY supported raising the social security retirement age
2013: Huizenga Called To Reexamine Social Security, Particularly “Who Qualifies And At What Level They Qualify.” According to the Holland Sentinel, "Defense, transportation and government operations are, of course, on the list, but unsurprisingly entitlements (which make up more than 60 percent of the federal budget) are top of the Republican lawmaker's list. ‘The entitlement side is really the long-term driver behind our debts,’ Huizenga said. ‘We have got to wrestle this dragon down to the ground.’ Social Security should be re-examined, he said - ‘who qualifies and at what level they qualify.’ ‘We have a social and moral obligation to them, and we're not going to change that,’ Huizenga said of those already Social Security-eligible, but those in his generation, or of his children's generation, have time to plan for their retirements with a new Social Security system." [Holland Sentinel, 1/1/13]
2011: Huizenga Expressed Support For Raising The Social Security Retirement Age. According to the Muskegon Chronicle, "The congressman pointed to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as being major contributors to overspending, especially in future years. Huizenga said he would consider raising the retirement age for Social Security as Americans live longer and fewer workers will be paying for a growing number of elderly when the Baby Boomer generation retires. He also would &means test& benefits, as those with high incomes do not need to draw on the entitlement programs as much as low-income seniors." [Muskegon Chronicle, 7/10/11]
2011: Huizenga Said Congress Needed To Take A Serious Look At Adjusting The Social Security Retirement Age And Benefits. According to the Holland Sentinel, "As Washington debates whether to raise the debt ceiling, Rep. Bill Huizenga was in the district this past week detailing his own fears that the country's $14 trillion national debt will get even worse. ‘I got scared. I knew it was bad when I was running for this position, but I've been frustrated that there's not more discussion of this out in the general public,’ he said. ‘I don't know how you can give this an honest look and not say that there are some serious issues.’ Huizenga passed out pamphlets with graphs of skyrocketing debt and assertions such as, ‘The debt crisis threatens our job growth, our national security and sovereignty, and our nation's children’ at a breakfast hosted by the Holland and Zeeland Chambers this week. He said ‘autopilot spending’ for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and debt payments now comprise 62 percent of the budget, compared to 42 percent in 1970. Cuts to these programs are a touchy subject in Washington for years, but Huizenga says that has to change. But how do you do it? For Social Security, Huizenga suggests, Congress has to take a serious look at adjusting the retirement age and benefits." [Holland Sentinel, 3/27/11]
¶ More than 174,000 michiganders in the 4th congressional district relied on social security benefits
174,328 Michiganders In The 4th Congressional District Relied On Social Security Benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, in 2024, 174,328 Michiganders in the 4th congressional district received Social Security benefits. [Social Security Administration, Michigan, 2024]
¶ Huizenga Defended DOGE, Which Weakened The Social Security Administration, Despite Huizenga’s Promises That Trump Wouldn’t Touch Social Security
¶ Huizenga promised trump and republicans would not touch social security
February 2025: Huizenga Promised Republicans Would Not Touch Medicaid, Medicare, Or Social Security. According to an interview Rep. Bill Huizenga gave on Wood TV, "ANCHOR: Final question, Congressman. Critics of the president say programs will be cut for his desired tax cuts. Should Medicare and Medicaid recipients be worried? HUIZENGA: He's he's been very clear about that. That's not going to get touched. Social Security's not going to get touched as well." [Wood TV, 2/1/25] (video)
Huizenga Promised President Trump Had No Intention Of Cutting Social Security Or Medicare Benefits. According to an interview Rep. Bill Huizenga gave on All Talk with Kevin Dietz, "HOST: What is your reaction to the budget framework? Democrats are out there saying this is going to go after, you know, Medicaid, Medicare, many of the possibly Social Security. You know , they're putting that fear out there. HUIZENGA: Yeah, and well Kevin, you hit the nail on the head , they're putting the fear out there , not facts. It's all fear. And in fact, I was with President Trump on Tuesday with a group that was concerned about the frankly, the Senate, the Senate not being fiscally conservative enough in that proposal. And and that was something he made very, very clear. We are not touching Social Security, which is on its own program by the way, anyway. And then Medicare and Medicaid. And, you know, the interesting thing is, is that Medicare is a joint, uh, a joint state and federal program. And, you know, at some point, the state is going to be involved in deciding who is going to get covered and who isn't going to get covered as well. But, you know, he was very, very clear to all of us that he has no intention and will not allow that those benefits getting cut." [All Talk with Kevin Dietz, 4/11/25] (audio)
Huizenga: “Let Me Just Reiterate, Social Security Is Not Being Touched.” According to the Boston Globe, "One after another, callers on a telephone town hall with U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga pressed the Michigan Republican about possible cuts to Social Security. Among them was a retired teacher and coach from West Michigan who said he and his wife, both with disabilities, have struggled to access their benefits. The man, identified only as Michael from Allegan, said he feared that office closures and massive layoffs of federal workers — part of an effort by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to slash government spending — will make it even harder. ‘We worked our entire life,’ he said. ‘But we can’t get any help because we can’t get through to anybody.’ Huizenga pledged throughout the meeting: ‘Let me just reiterate, Social Security is not being touched.’" [Associated Press via Boston Globe, 3/15/25]
- Huizenga Claimed Social Security Would Not Be Touched By Congress Or President Trump. According to a tele-town hall hosted by Rep. Bill Huizenga, "HUIZENGA: So the, let me just again reiterate, Social Security is not being touched. All right. We have a social, moral obligation to the folks that are currently in Social Security. It's not being touched by Congress or the president or anybody else." [Rep. Bill Huizenga Tele-Town Hall, 3/7/25] (audio)
¶ huizenga defended doge
Huizenga Claimed DOGE Was “A Great Conversation To Have” About Federal Spending. According to an interview Rep. Bill Huizenga gave on JR Mornings, "HUIZENGA: Each Congress is different because we have different people. And each time actually. But I, I do think you're right in your analysis that, uh, you know, DOGE, uh, it has has come about because of this frustration from those just on the outside of not being able to see Congress come together and, and really deal with this. Last time it was done, I was a staff guy for my predecessor, Peter Hoekstra, back in the day when, uh, when they last balanced the budget, uh, under Bill Clinton and Republicans were in control of the House and the Senate. And, uh, you know, I'm, I'm hopeful that we're going to be able to try to do this. Look, DOGE is a great conversation to have, but they are not going to be able to do all of that. Congress still has to do its job. I'm just hoping that, uh, after the last election, people wake up enough to say, Hey, look, we know that there's some radical change that needs to happen in Washington, and and this is one of those tools that hopefully is going to get us there." [JR Mornings, 2/7/25] (audio)
Huizenga Said DOGE Was “Going To Be Able To Do A Lot Of Good Work And They Actually Have Been.” According to WJSM, “Congressman Bill Huizenga says the federal budget cuts being prepared by Elon Musk and his DOGE staff on behalf of President Donald Trump will be a good exercise once Congress gets its say. Since Musk began digging into the finances of various federal departments, many have expressed concerns about an abuse of power. However, Huizenga tells us DOGE isn’t just some private entity coming in to meddle. He says it has some official standing. ‘They’re going to be able to do a lot of good work and they actually have been,’ Huizenga said. ‘DOGE has been folded into a digital service division, so it’s not like it’s this outside separate operating organization. It is actually part of a previously established government agency. So, they’re going to have to work with Congress.’” [WSJM, 2/6/25]
Huizenga Welcomed Trump’s Plan To Create DOGE. According to the Detroit News, "Huizenga said he welcomes Trump's plan to appoint the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to recommend hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, but he warned that Congress has the final say. ‘There's some people who just think the DOGE is going to be able to just wave a magic wand of some sort and magically make all the spending go away,’ Huizenga said. ‘There might be some of that, but there's going to be congressional involvement, so as we're working through this, we need to have a forcing action of some sort.’" [Detroit News, 1/12/25]
¶ At The Social Security Administration, DOGE Forced Mass Layoffs, Longer Wait Times And Frequent Website Crashes
One Year After DOGE-Era Cuts Resulted In A 12 Percent Cut Of The Social Security Administration’s Workforce, Social Security Offices Across The Country Still Struggled With Staffing. According to Business Insider, "More than a dozen Social Security field offices are listed as closed to in-person service, instead directing customers to reach out by phone or contact the national 800 number. Now, the list of closures has prompted concerns for the beleaguered agency and its recipients. A federal employees' union memo obtained by Business Insider sheds some light on why offices are closed: Some due to operational issues with their buildings, while others are so small that any understaffing forces them to temporarily shut down. […] The closures come at a tumultuous time for the Social Security Administration and its beneficiaries; the agency shed around 7,000 workers, or nearly 12% of its workforce, during the DOGE era, and has had to temporarily reassign some employees to staff phone lines. While the SSA said these office closures are temporary, staffing issues and a lack of field offices could be an increasing problem for the administration and recipients alike. Some currently-shuttered offices simply don't have enough staff. These smaller offices, called resident stations, are often staffed by just one person and serve low-population areas. Two resident stations in rural Montana and Wyoming are closed for lack of workers." [Business Insider, 4/23/26]
HEADLINE: "Social Security Stops Reporting Call Wait Times And Other Metrics" [Washington Post, 6/20/25]
HEADLINE: "As Social Security Services Are Cut Back, Millions Of Seniors Face Long Drives" [Axios, 4/8/25]
HEADLINE: "Social Security Website Keeps Crashing, As DOGE Demands Cuts To IT Staff" [Washington Post, 4/7/25]
HEADLINE: "Social Security Faces Thousands More Job Cuts Even With Service In Tailspin" [Washington Post, 4/4/25]
HEADLINE: “DOGE Cuts Trim Funding For Arts And Humanities Efforts In Minnesota” [MinnPost, 4/8/25]
CBPP Said The Trump Administration Had Pushed Out 7,000 Social Security Workers. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Over the past five months, the Trump Administration has forced the Social Security Administration (SSA) through a radical transformation that threatens to disrupt services for the largely older and severely disabled people who most rely on the agency.[1] The Trump Administration and its so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have created huge gaps in customer service and support by indiscriminately pushing out 7,000 workers to hit an arbitrary staffing reduction target. This is the largest staffing cut in SSA’s history.[2] (See Figure 1.)" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/23/25]
The Social Security Administration Website Crashed Four Times In Ten Days In March Because Servers Were Overloaded. According to the Washington Post, "The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in place of receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system to monitor customer experience because that office was eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon Musk. And the phones keep ringing. And ringing." [Washington Post, 3/25/25]
Field Office Managers At Social Security Offices Had To Answer Phones In Place Of Receptionists Because DOGE Had Pushed Out So Many Federal Employees. According to the Washington Post, "The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in place of receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system to monitor customer experience because that office was eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon Musk. And the phones keep ringing. And ringing." [Washington Post, 3/25/25]
DOGE Eliminated The Social Security Administration’s System To Monitor Customer Experience. According to the Washington Post, "The Social Security Administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in place of receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system to monitor customer experience because that office was eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon Musk. And the phones keep ringing. And ringing." [Washington Post, 3/25/25]
Early February-Late March 2025: AARP Said More Than 2,000 People Per Week Had Called Expressing Concerns About Whether They Would Continue To Get Their Social Security Benefits. According to the Washington Post, "Alarmed lawmakers are straining to answer questions back home from angry constituents. Calls have flooded into congressional offices. AARP announced Monday that more than 2,000 people a week have called the retiree organization since early February — double the usual number — with concerns about whether benefits they paid for during their working careers will continue. Social Security is the primary source of income for about 40 percent of older Americans." [Washington Post, 3/25/25]
¶ More than 174,000 michiganders in the 4th congressional district relied on social security benefits
174,328 Michiganders In The 4th Congressional District Relied On Social Security Benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, in 2024, 174,328 Michiganders in the 4th congressional district received Social Security benefits. [Social Security Administration, Michigan, 2024]