According to the article, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) signed the Social Security Act into law 90 years ago, he vowed it would provide economic stability to older people while giving the U.S. "an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.”

Today, the program provides benefits to almost 69 million Americans monthly. It is a major source of income for people over 65 and is popular across the country and political lines.

Threat to the Program’s Solvency

It also looks more threatened than ever.

Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in money to pay full benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office, the program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have sued.

A Ponzi Scheme?

Trump administration officials including the president for months falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential “Ponzi scheme."

Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made — under both Democratic and Republican presidents.

The “Go Broke” Date and Other Challenges

Here’s a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program.

The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to 2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social Security would only be able to pay 81 percent of benefits, according to an annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected depletion dates, the report concluded.

The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions, increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers.

Republicans’ new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

“They haven’t laid out an idea to fix it yet," he said.

Privatization as a Solution?

The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred investment accounts dubbed “ Trump accounts ” may serve as a “ backdoor to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments.

The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal retirement accounts. The plan was not well received by the public.

Limit Benefits for Wealthy Retirees?

Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in Bush’s White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs to be reduced in size to maintain benefits for generations to come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.

“We will have to make a choice," Hubbard said. “If you want Social Security benefits to look like they are today, we’re going to have to raise everyone’s taxes a lot. And if that’s what people want, that’s a menu, and you pay the high price and you move on."

Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time.

“It’s really a political choice,” he said, adding “Neither one of those is pain free."

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump, rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government.

Martin O’Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper.

"There is no openness and there is no transparency” at the agency, he said. “And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of collapse.”

Older Americans Support the Program

An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans — particularly Democrats — support the program but are not confident the benefit will be available to them when they retire.

“So much of what we hear is that it’s running out of money,” said Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be expanded.

Other Proposed Solutions

“In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political stretch,” she said. They include raising the income tax cap on high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less inclined to support that change.

Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age.

Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal investment account.

She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as they worked the same number of years, which she argues would increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this would impact middle-class earners is unclear.

“When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform it so that we don’t have indiscriminate 23 percent across the board cuts for everybody,” Greszler said. “We need to reform the system in a more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.”

Discussion Questions

  1. As indicated in the article, when FDR signed the Social Security Act into law 90 years ago, he vowed it would provide economic stability to older people while giving the U.S. "an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.” How does the Social Security System contribute to the soundness of the U.S. economy?

    The Social Security system plays a critical role in the soundness of the U.S. economy by providing a safety net for individuals, stabilizing the broader economy, and supporting long-term economic growth. Here’s how:
    (a) Income Security for Retirees, Disabled, and Survivors

    Social Security primarily functions as a retirement program, but it also provides disability benefits and benefits to survivors of deceased workers. This steady stream of income helps reduce poverty and financial hardship among vulnerable groups, particularly older adults. By doing so, it contributes to:

    (1) Economic Stability—When individuals have guaranteed income, they are more likely to continue spending, which helps drive demand for goods and services in the economy. This supports businesses and jobs across various sectors.

    (2) Reduction of Elderly Poverty--Without Social Security, poverty among the elderly would likely be much higher, which would place additional strain on other forms of government assistance and social services.

    (b) Automatic Stabilizer for the Economy

    Social Security acts as an automatic stabilizer during economic downturns. When the economy is in recession and people are laid off or experience a loss of income, Social Security benefits continue to flow to recipients. This helps maintain consumer demand, which is essential for recovery. During periods of economic stress, people receiving Social Security benefits are still spending, which helps to keep demand up for goods and services, even when the economy is contracting.

    (c) Boosting Consumer Spending

    Social Security payments are a significant portion of household income for many recipients, especially retirees. This spending, especially when recipients have limited other income sources, circulates through the economy and helps sustain demand for goods and services, driving economic activity. The dollars spent by Social Security beneficiaries often go toward essential goods, housing, healthcare, and local services, further stimulating economic growth and helping small businesses.

    (d) Providing Financial Predictability and Stability

    The Social Security system allows individuals to plan for their future, knowing they will have a stable income source in their retirement years or in the event of disability. This long-term predictability also contributes to consumer confidence. More particularly, when people feel financially secure about their retirement and healthcare, they are more likely to spend and invest in the economy, which helps fuel growth.

    (e) Promoting Intergenerational Solidarity

    Social Security also serves as a form of intergenerational transfer, where working individuals fund the benefits of current retirees. This creates a sense of collective responsibility and promotes societal stability. Knowing that they will receive benefits in the future encourages people to stay in the workforce longer, potentially raising the overall productivity of the economy.

    (f) Public Confidence in the System

    The reliability and broad support of the Social Security system foster public confidence in the U.S. economy. It ensures that older Americans and others in need have a source of income, even in times of economic hardship, which maintains social cohesion. By providing a direct income to retirees, people with disabilities, and survivors, Social Security reduces reliance on other welfare programs that may be less reliable or more susceptible to political shifts.

    (g) Stable Financial Flows

    The Social Security Trust Fund is funded through payroll taxes, which are paid by workers and employers. These taxes provide a steady flow of revenue into the system, and the Social Security Administration has built up a sizable reserve over the years. This fund helps ensure long-term solvency, which in turn supports the economy’s stability.

  2. In your reasoned opinion, do legislators have an ethical responsibility to work to ensure the financial solvency of Social Security? Why or why not?
    This is in your opinion question, but in your author’s opinion, a resounding “Yes!” In its 90th year, Social Security is now a “senior citizen” itself and has earned the respect of the current generation of legislators. It is arguably the most successful social (i.e., “We the People”) program in the history of the United States. The program has kept millions of people in the United States out of poverty, and represents a solemn vow from the U.S. government to the American people—namely, when you are older, even if others may abandon you, “Uncle Sam” will not!

  3. What, specifically, do you believe is the most effective and efficient way to “shore up” Social Security: Increasing the retirement age, increasing the maximum income subject to the Social Security tax, lowering benefits, some other approach, or some combination of the foregoing?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, increasing the retirement age is a “no go”—Life expectancies are no longer increasing significantly in the United States. Lowering benefits seems like a breach of trust, indicating that although the government has fulfilled its solemn vow to provide for seniors throughout the decades, it can no longer fulfill that promise. Your author is intrigued by the prospects of increasing the maximum income subject to the Social Security tax. Are you aware of the fact that if an individual realizes $500 million in 2025, that individual will only pay Social Security tax on their first $176,100 of income? This means that the remaining $499,823,900 is subject to zero Social Security tax?! What if the cap were raised to $1 million in income? That may not permanently address the Social Security solvency issue, but it would most certainly serve to “shore up” the program for the foreseeable future.