Thursday, October 1, 2026
Senators elected in this November’s elections will be in office in 2032, the year the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Fund is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to run dry.
The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug. 14, 1935, in order to provide retirees a system of benefits to make retirement easier to bear.
At that time there was a ratio of 37 workers paying into the system for every 1 retiree; today it has diminished to less than 3 workers paying into the system for every 1 retiree. In the years when the money paid into the system exceeded expenditures, the surplus was placed into the trust fund.
But this all changed in the early 1980s when some economists sounded the alarm that the trust fund was running out of money to meet the growing demands made on Social Security and no longer be able to fund all of the promised benefits.
This led Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to craft the Social Security Amendment of 1983, which was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
The amendment gradually raised the retirement age to 67 from 65 over several decades.
Payroll taxes (Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA) were set at 6.2 percent on both employers and employees.
Some of the higher-income retirees’ benefits became taxable, while annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) were delayed by six months, saving Social Security about $40 billion throughout the 1980s. And, Social Security coverage was expanded to newly hired federal employees to increase the number of workers paying into the system.
The 98th Congress of the United States had acted in a bipartisan manner to save the Social Security system.
But that was then and the now is here. Since 2010, Social Security has paid out more than it has taken in. This has led the Social Security Administration to take money out of the trust fund.
Given the number of programs (the top ones being Retirement Benefits, Disability Insurance, Survivors Benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicare Benefits) supported by Social Security, the trust fund’s $2.34 trillion will be gone by 2032
When this happens, benefits will be cut by an expected, approximate 20 percent across the board to align with the tax revenues that funds them. To be clear, the Social Security system will not be bankrupt; payroll taxes will still be collected to fund the programs, but those monies will perhaps cover no more than roughly 80 percent of benefits.
This poses a dilemma of classic proportions. With no money in the trust fund, there will be a 20 percent cut in Social Security benefits. To solve this problem either taxes are raised or benefits are cut.
Sit with that for a moment.
And then ask yourself the following question: Given the lack of bipartisanship in the 119th Congress and the current political acrimony and turmoil; and given the fact that nearly 60 percent of Americans have no confidence in congressional Democrats and Republicans, do you really think the senators elected to the 120th Congress and others on into the future will have the courage to make the necessary changes in order to keep Social Security fully funded?
I would not bet my Social Security check on this happening.
JM Simpson, of Lacey, is a retired community college history instructor. Currently, he works as a documentary photographer to advocate for the end of homelessness in this country.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Boatyarddog
Absolutely Unacceptable to cut Retirement Benefits or any others.
Tax Trillionairs and millionaires just 22% and we xtend Benefits until 2056. The Money IS there.
Monday, August 31 Report this
KatAshe
Just a reminder. Those millions of workers without citizenship or green cards, pay into social security and Medicare their whole working lives, BUT will never receive any benefits.
So with their departure not only are all construction trades and agriculture short of millions of workers, those missing workers are no longer paying into the system to support social security and Medicare.
Lastly, if ALL taxable income was liable to pay into the system, the percentage for both the employers and workers contributions, currently 6.2% each, could probably be reduced to something like 3% each, profiting employment for minimum wage workers. More money in the pockets of minimum wage workers, and less cost to employers, and simultaneously increasing the reserves.
Monday, August 31 Report this
Snevets
Tax the millionaires & billionaires. Tax the churches.
Monday, August 31 Report this
BevBassett
There is an obvious and simple fair solution to this issue: remove the ceiling above which people do not pay Social Security taxes. That would solve the problem. The problem is that high earners don't pay their fair share.
Tuesday, September 1 Report this
sunshine39
Bev Bassett So obvious: I don't understand why this simple solution has not been implemented.
Tuesday, September 1 Report this
DanaMadsen
Sunshine 39: It's obvious! When Congress is populated with rich people, do you really think they will willingly remove the ceiling? NO! They need to be dragged kicking and screaming to the vote.
Tuesday, September 1 Report this
ejpoleii
Unfortunately, BevBassett's solution is not so simple or fair unless the SS payment is based on one's TOTAL contributions without limit. Otherwise, more highly paid employees are subsidizing lower paid employees. That is NOT fair. Don't forget, SS is based on employee's compensation as salary. Also, there is the issue of some compensation being paid in stock options. How is this supposed to be taxed? Is it salary or not? Further, the very highly "paid" people, millionaires and billionaires are the entrepreneurs and investors who own stock. Except for dividends, their "compensation" is actually wealth, not money. If you tax wealth, the owners have to sell the stock in the company to pay the tax. All this talk of taxing "rich" people is naive and shows a fundamental ignorance about the economy.
Saturday, September 5 Report this