ArcaMax

Social Security and Politics

Every couple of years, whenever midterm or presidential elections come around, I like to remind my readers of a few things. And many times, it's in response to emails I get similar to this one: "I'm afraid that this upcoming election will lead to dramatic changes to Social Security. So even though I didn't want to file for Social Security for a few more years, I'm going to do it now so that I am grandfathered into the current system and no politician will pull the rug out from under me!" And then they ask me if I think that's a good idea.

And here is my answer. NEVER make a decision about when to start your Social Security benefits based on politics. Instead, make that decision based on your financial situation, your anticipated longevity, your marital status, and other personal considerations discussed often in this column.

Why not politics? Well, consider this. For 50 years now, people have been making the same point to me. In other words, as far back as the 1970s and 1980s, people were telling me: "I'm afraid so and so (fill in your political villain) will be elected and he will ruin Social Security as we know it." And of course, that never happened. Social Security keeps chugging along no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office or in Congress.

To be sure, Social Security has been reformed over the years, and changes have been made to the laws affecting a person's eligibility for benefits. But if those changes were major, they were almost always phased in over a long time.

Case in point. In 1983, Congress raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. But they did not do so overnight. They phased in the age increase over a period of more than four decades. In fact, it won't be until 2027 that people born in 1960 will finally reach their full retirement age of 67.

If somewhere in the near future Congress raises the retirement age again (a likely prospect), it won't be people currently in their 50s and 60s who will be affected by the change. Rather, it will be our children, and more likely our grandchildren, who will have to wait until a greater age before they can retire with full Social Security benefits.

And speaking of politics and Social Security, many readers have complained to me that even though everyone knows that for years now, with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every single day, the Social Security system has been heading towards a financial cliff. Yet nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

Well, in my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around. Some liberals and Democrats deserve their share of the blame because so often they tend to put their heads in the sand and say, "What Social Security problem?" They run on a platform that essentially says, "I won't let those nasty Republicans mess around with your Social Security benefits!"

And then on the other hand, some conservatives and Republicans deserve their share of the blame because they frequently propose outlandish and totally unworkable solutions to the problem - such as "privatizing" the system.

But here is one of the main points I wanted to make in today's column. You may remember this line from Shakespeare's play, "Julius Caesar," when Cassius is trying to convince Brutus that Caesar was not chosen by the gods to rule Rome, but rather by the actions of citizens. Cassius says: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

If I were the great Bard today and I was writing a play about the lack of any progress on the Social Security reform front, I would say, "The fault, dear reader, is not in our politicians, but in ourselves." In my humble opinion, the public deserves their share of the blame because they say they want reform but they tend to vote otherwise. For example, if I ran for Congress on a platform of increasing the Social Security retirement age to 68; slightly reducing future cost-of-living increases; and raising the Social Security payroll tax by just a quarter of 1% (three very viable solutions to Social Security's long-range fiscal problems), my opponent would run attack ads claiming that: "If you vote for Tom Margenau, he's going to increase your taxes and cut your grandma's Social Security checks at the same time!" And guess what? Gullible people will fall for that argument and I would lose the election in a landslide.

My guess is that everyone says they want reform, but what they mean is they want reforms that impact the other guy. They don't want their Social Security checks reduced, or their grandma's benefits cut, but they wouldn't mind if that other less deserving guy's benefits are reduced. And they don't want their Social Security taxes raised, or their children's taxes raised, but they wouldn't mind if that other guy's payroll taxes are raised.

And what's so maddening about this whole process is that Social Security reform can actually be relatively simple. Or rather, I should say some fairly reasonable reform proposals could be enacted that would keep the program solvent for many generations to come.

If you think of Social Security as a pipeline, with workers paying taxes on one end of the pipe and Social Security recipients getting benefits on the other end of the pipe, then any balanced reform package would include proposals to pump a little more money into the input side of the pipe and to slightly cut back on what is flowing from the output side of the pipe. In other words, to slightly increase taxes and to slightly reduce future benefits.

How do we do that? Well, in my book, "Social Security -- Simple and Smart," there is a chapter that explains Social Security financing and offers very workable and realistic proposals for reform. You can get the book at Amazon or other booksellers. And obviously, I'm not the only guy with ideas to fix Social Security. There are hundreds of them out there. For example, a recent survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation affiliated with the University of Maryland found that both Republicans and Democrats support a package of changes that would eliminate Social Security's budget shortfall by first, increasing the current cap on the payroll tax;

Second, gradually increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5%; Third, reducing benefits for the top 20% of Social Security recipients; and fourth, gradually increasing the full retirement age from 67 to 68.

In next week's column, I will share other Social Security reform proposals from The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has two books with all the answers. One is called "Social Security -- Simple and Smart: 10 Easy-to-Understand Fact Sheets That Will Answer All Your Questions About Social Security." The other is "Social Security: 100 Myths and 100 Facts." You can find the books at Amazon.com or other book outlets. Or you can send him an email at thomas.margenau@comcast.net. To find out more about Tom Margenau and to read past columns and see features from other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Copyright 2026 Creators Syndicate, Inc.