As the final midterm votes are being counted, older Americans now know the identities of many of the senators who will determine their retirement futures. While both the House and Senate flipped blue, the 35 senators elected on Tuesday will grapple with the Social Security shortfall expected in the early 2030s. Given that senators serve six-year terms, more than a third of the incoming Senate will be responsible for reforming Social Security — or letting its funding deplete.

Social Security, a lifeline for millions of older Americans and people with disabilities, is on track to run out of reserves by 2032, which would cut Americans' benefits by roughly 22%. For a typical dual-income couple who recently retired, this could mean almost $17,000 in lost income each year beginning in 2033.

We are inviting readers to share their stories with Business Insider reporters to help us assemble a comprehensive look at long-term care costs. We want to know how much caring for an older loved one has cost you and your family. Please fill out this form to participate.

Social Security loses money each year, spending more on benefits to over 75 million people than it gets in tax revenue. Social Security is projected to collect $2 trillion but spend $2.4 trillion in 2033 as the US population gets older. Politicians have skirted the question of whether Social Security will ever be depleted, but there hasn't been a clear path forward. Aging advocates and Social Security researchers have called on Congress to act sooner rather than later.

In local news stories leading up to the midterms, many older Americans told reporters that the candidates' views on Social Security strongly influenced who they would vote for. Though candidates in the closely followed Senate races often spoke more about general affordability, all had at least mentioned Social Security in their campaign promises.

Many Democrats in competitive races favored lifting the payroll-tax cap on high earners, while many Republicans stressed protecting current beneficiaries, cutting fraud, or establishing bipartisan commissions without endorsing a specific solvency plan. A few politicians have suggested creating an investment fund, while others have suggested lowering the annual benefit adjustment. Below is a list of what the winning Senate candidates in the most closely watched elections have said regarding Social Security's future: Lifting the payroll-tax cap would raise substantial new revenue for Social Security.

Currently, a worker earning $1 million is taxed only on the first $184,500. Under this proposal, Social Security would still operate at a deficit, but it would significantly push back insolvency. Some candidates supported raising the cap but not eliminating it entirely, which would slightly delay insolvency. Those in favor of targeting fraud argued that it could prevent benefits from going to ineligible recipients, prevent identity theft, and reduce payment errors. Critics have argued that an improper payment can be an overpayment, an underpayment, or a paperwork error, and thus not intentional fraud.

Others have said that devoting resources to eliminating suspected fraud wouldn't amount to substantial savings. Many shied away from proposing to raise the retirement age, which has been unpopular among younger voters and has led to mass unrest in various European countries. Some proposals would push the normal retirement age up to 69 and increase the age for delayed retirement to 72. Many older Americans likely voted out of concern for the future of Medicaid, which millions use to help cover long-term care costs.

With the provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act set to take effect next year, many older Americans hope a Democrat-controlled House could protect against Medicaid cuts and expand Medicare coverage. Democrats have also discussed restoring Affordable Care Act subsidies.