Congress made Social Security’s promises. It should cut other spending before demanding more from younger workers or punishing retirees who saved responsibly.
This editorial ran in the Tuesday 3 November 2026 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
My high school civics teacher, Col. Walker, warned his classes not to count on Social Security. Save for yourselves, he said. Years later, an economics professor assured us that government could always print enough money to pay the benefits.
The problem is how Social Security works. It’s a government-run Ponzi scheme: today’s workers pay for those receiving benefits today, counting on the next generation to do the same for them. Unlike a private swindle, Social Security operates openly under law. And while government can compel participation, it can’t compel the math to work.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt championed Social Security in 1935. The original law created an entitlement to benefits while reserving Congress’s power to change the rules. Workers received no personal investment account to leave to their children. Promising benefits helps politicians win elections, while paying for them becomes the next Congress’s problem.
In 1950, Social Security had 16.5 workers for every beneficiary. By 2025, that ratio had fallen to 2.6. The program evolved, Americans lived longer, and families had fewer children, leaving fewer workers per beneficiary to finance Congress’s promises; and accusing critics of wanting to throw Grandma into the street won’t produce more workers.
The 2026 Social Security trustees’ report projects that retirement and survivor reserves will run out in late 2032. Checks would not stop, but continuing income would cover only 78% of scheduled benefits.
SSA itself says benefits are “not meant to be your only source of income in retirement.” Government told us to save, too, treating Social Security as a safety net rather than our whole retirement plan. I took that advice. Like many Americans nearing retirement, I’ve spent five decades working, saving, and paying compulsory Social Security taxes.
I reject taxing younger workers more to preserve Boomers’ benefits. But I also reject treating longtime contributors as parasites. D.C. confiscated part of every paycheck. We could not decline and invest that money ourselves, letting it compound into retirement wealth we owned. Explaining that politicians already spent it does not absolve them. Nor should saving responsibly disqualify someone from benefits.
Now we are offered the familiar menu: pay more, retire later, accept less, or borrow the difference.
Higher payroll taxes are a nonstarter. Calling part of the increase an employer “contribution” does not make it free; that cost leaves employers less money to pay workers.
Full retirement age has already risen from 65 to 67 for the youngest Boomers. Raising it again means working longer for full benefits or retiring at the same age with a smaller check.
According to the CDC’s 2024 figures, Black Americans’ life expectancy is about four years shorter than White Americans’. Shorter lifespans leave Black Americans fewer years to collect retirement benefits. Raising the retirement age widens that disadvantage.
Borrowing only moves the bill forward with interest. Printing money fuels inflation, forcing retirees to pay more for food, housing, and medical care. Cost-of-living adjustments then raise what Social Security owes. Print more to cover those increases, and the cycle feeds itself. More dollars do not produce more groceries.
Having compelled workers to finance its promises, Congress should cut other spending before demanding more from them. Those cuts have consequences, but so does taking more from workers’ paychecks.
Families facing tight budgets cut nonessential spending. Congress should do the same. Benefits and interest already owed should take priority over wars we can’t afford, corporate subsidies, political favors, and programs D.C. has no business funding.
I would freeze total federal spending at its current dollar level until the budget is balanced and Social Security is sustainably financed. Congress would have to fund increases in one program by cutting elsewhere, without using emergency labels to sneak routine spending past the cap. As revenues grow, use the increase to close the deficit. Let D.C. live on a fixed income for a change.
Spending cuts do not automatically replenish Social Security’s trust fund. Congress must authorize transfers from general revenue into the retirement trust fund, funded by cuts elsewhere.
Republicans deserve no exemption from that discipline. A Republican borrowing binge burdens our grandchildren just as surely as a Democratic one.
For younger workers, the longer-term goal should be to build retirement savings they own, with the investment risks ownership brings. Because redirecting payroll taxes into those accounts leaves less for current beneficiaries, Congress must publish the transition cost and identify the spending cuts that would cover it.
Workers did not design this arrangement. D.C. did. Stop presenting a choice between betraying retirees and squeezing their children.
D.C. promised us Social Security. It had no right to pledge our grandchildren as collateral.
Courtney served 20 years as a Navy nuclear engineering officer aboard submarines, taught information science at the graduate level for 15 years and spent 14 years teaching secondary math. He now enjoys chasing his nine grandchildren around Moscow.