“Pass the Social Security Expansion Act to increase benefits by about $2,400 a year and extend the program's solvency for 75 years by applying the payroll tax to income above $250,000.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Independently verified. Warren is a Senate Co-Chair of the Expand Social Security Caucus (with Bernie Sanders) and jointly introduced the Social Security Expansion Act, S.393 in the 118th Congress (introduced Feb 13, 2023), a bill matching the promise exactly: it would raise benefits ~$2,400/year, extend solvency 75 years past 2096, and apply the payroll tax to income (including capital gains) above $250,000. This is genuine, sustained leadership beyond a single supporting vote: she co-chairs the dedicated caucus and has repeatedly co-introduced the flagship bill (117th, 118th, and 119th Congresses). Congress.gov lists Sanders as formal primary sponsor and Warren among several cosponsors, but her caucus co-chairmanship and co-introduction role make CHAMPIONED, not merely ATTEMPTED, the correct label. The promise to PASS the Act was not fulfilled — S.393 was read twice, referred to the Committee on Finance, never received a committee or floor vote, and died at the end of the 118th Congress — so it falls short of FULL. This standard is party-neutral: a legislator of either party who co-chairs the relevant caucus and repeatedly co-introduces the matching bill, but does not get it passed, warrants CHAMPIONED. The prior rating's outcome and confidence stand; the unverifiable Newsweek citation was replaced with the corroborating Sanders press release.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.