Today in news that should shock no one: Social Security is running out of money. Yesterday was the program’s 88th birthday and socialists were celebrating and promising to expand it.

88 years ago, before Social Security became law, about 50% of seniors lived in poverty. Today, as a result of that program, that number is much lower. While there are those in Congress who want to cut Social Security, our job is to do the opposite. We must protect and expand it.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) August 14, 2023

Elizabeth Warren acknowledged, at least in passing, that the program as it exists now isn’t “secure.”

Happy 88th Birthday to Social Security! Republicans keep demanding benefit cuts, but I have a plan to secure and expand Social Security by $200 a month, fully paid for by making the wealthy pay their fair share. Let’s get it done.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) August 14, 2023

CBS News published a story yesterday explaining why it’s not secure.

Social Security is on track to cut benefits to retirees in 2033, when its trust fund reserves are forecast to be depleted. The reduction could be substantial, according to a new analysis.

Unless the program is shored up before 2033, the typical newly retired, dual-earner couple will see their Social Security checks reduced by $17,400 annually, or $1,450 per month, according to the report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The new analysis was done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. They were more blunt about the current politics of the issue and where promises not to touch benefits will inevitably lead.

As the 2024 presidential campaign ramps up, candidates are facing pressure to pledge not to touch Social Security. While this pledge is framed as ‘protecting benefits,’ it is – in reality – an implicit endorsement of a 23 percent across-the-board benefit cut in 2033, when the Social Security retirement fund becomes insolvent. In that year, annual benefits would be cut by $17,400 for a typical newly retired dual-income couple.

The winner of the 2024 presidential election will face a Social Security trust fund rapidly approaching insolvency. The program’s Trustees project that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will deplete its reserves by 2033, when today’s 57-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 72.

Upon insolvency, the law mandates that the OASI trust fund can only spend in amounts equal to incoming trust fund revenue, which means that all 70 million retirees, dependents, and survivors – regardless of age, income, or need – will see their benefits cut by 23 percent.

In other words, promising to do nothing will set the entire system on a course for disaster. There are really only two ways out of this. The first, which is promoted by progressives like Elizabeth Warren is to eliminate the income cap on social security payroll taxes:

That cap, a feature of the program since its start in the 1930s following the Great Depression, means that any income over that level isn’t subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which is 6.2% for workers and an additional 6.2% for employers. In 2023, the tax cap stands at $160,200, which means any income above that amount is exempt from the payroll tax…

Eliminating the cap would subject higher earnings to payroll tax, generating additional revenue for Social Security and helping to stabilize its finances, proponents say.

In short, soak the rich. That’s pretty much always the left’s go to solution.

The alternative is to reduce benefits or increase the retirement age. I’m personally in favor of the latter but if you remember how the effort to up the retirement age went over in France recently, you already know why politicians are hesitant to bring it up. Democrats would love to run on this issue. They routinely demagogue it even when it’s not being discussed.

Ten years is long enough away that I’d be willing to be the next president does nothing at all. Kicking this particular can down the road is a bipartisan habit.