Social Security and Medicare Are Going Insolvent. Neither Biden nor Trump Has a Plan for It.
Social Security is expected to hit insolvency in 2035, while the portion of Medicare that pays for hospital visits and other medical care will be insolvent by 2036.

Neither of the two men most likely to be elected president in November has anything that could properly be described as a workable plan for addressing the approaching insolvency of America's two largest entitlement programs.
This week's news from the Social Security and Medicare trustees ought to underscore just how foolish that is. On Monday, annual reports from the officials charged with running the two old-age entitlement programs confirmed once again that the clock is ticking for both: Social Security is expected to hit insolvency in 2035, while the portion of Medicare that pays for hospital visits and other medical care will be insolvent by 2036.
Even though both projected insolvency dates have slightly improved since last year—when the trustees expected them to run out of cash reserves by 2034 and 2031, respectively—the seriousness of the problem cannot be ignored. When Social Security hits insolvency, beneficiaries will face an automatic 21 percent cut in benefits. The insolvency of Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will trigger an automatic 11 percent cut, which would "likely lead to significant disruptions in health care services for older individuals and those with disabilities," according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
It's worth underlining that point. Those benefit cuts are not the result of future choices that might be made by Congress and the president—they are baked into the current status quo of the two programs. Without policy changes, they will eventually become a reality.
That's a reality that neither President Joe Biden nor former President Donald Trump seem willing to acknowledge. Both leading contenders for the White House have pledged to block potential changes to Social Security—effectively a promise to keep the entitlement trains running full-speed down a dead-end track.
The Biden administration has denounced a plan drafted by some Republican lawmakers that would raise the retirement age to 69—a modest change, and one that is hardly sufficient to avert Social Security's insolvency. Trump, meanwhile, suggested in March that he was open to "cutting" and making other changes to entitlement programs—then immediately walked back those remarks. During this year's Republican primary, the Trump campaign ran ads targeting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley for their willingness to at least talk about the need for entitlement reform.
This should be disqualifying on both sides. The American people deserve to know how the next president would approach this problem. We don't need perfect solutions, but the utter lack of any plan demonstrates an (admittedly unsurprising) level of unseriousness.
"Many political leaders in both parties, from the top on down, would rather demagogue the issue than actually fix it," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in a statement. "As we head into peak campaign season, it is our job as Americans and the voting public to ensure that we demand President Biden and President Trump present us with a realistic, detailed plan to avert trust fund insolvency. And they need to work with Congress to implement a plan. Time is running out."
The best approach to Social Security would involve allowing American workers more freedom to plan for their own retirements—rather than raiding their paychecks to cover benefits for retirees, who in many cases are wealthier than the workers funding their benefits. Workers should be allowed to opt out of Social Security as part of any future changes.
Medicare's insolvency is a more complicated problem, but one that ought to be addressed first by trying to reduce the cost of health care rather than by raising taxes on working Americans.
Still, insolvency is only a part of the problem presented by the two creaking entitlement schemes. Both Social Security and Medicare are projected to run deficits every year between now and 2098 (the end of the trustees' reports' 75-year budget window), and those deficits are the primary driver of the federal government's increasingly unable fiscal situation. Even if the two programs weren't expected to run out of cash in the mid-2030s, putting them on a more stable fiscal trajectory would be important for long-term economic growth. Refusing to fix the spending side of the equation likely ensures devastating tax increases in the next decade and beyond.
The total unfunded liability for Social Security over the 75-year budget window totals $25.2 trillion, note Cato Institute budget analyst Romina Boccia and Ivane Nachkebia in The Debt Dispatch Substack newsletter. To close that gap with taxes alone, Congress would have to increase the payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 17.5 percent—equal to raising taxes by $2,450 annually on the median worker.
"Congress should tackle these welfare programs now before they become a bigger drag on people's livelihoods from higher taxes and economic growth from more government spending," Vance Ginn, a former White House economic advisor during the Trump administration, posted on X. "It won't be politically easy but the stakes are too high and the government failures getting us to this point are excessive and much be corrected with more free-market capitalism over what has been a path to big-government socialism or we risk a more dire situation."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Poor sarc.
Happiest day of his life is when Obama lowered the requirements for SSA disability.
The plan is that there will be a 20% benefits cut in 2035
Nothing else needs to be done
Immigrants are why welfare is going bankrupt. Duh. If Trump fixes the immigrant problem, then the welfare problem is solved. Round them up and send them and their families to somewhere where they can’t collect welfare. Last sanctuary state, home country, dead in a ditch, it’s all the same.
Thank you.
Poor sarc. Completely broken
And the reason why crime is so high.
And the reason why inflation is so high.
And the reason why taxes are so high.
Really, immigrants are to blame for everything. That is why we need a wall.
They're just like the leftists they hate. Only difference is what/who they blame.
Sarc and Jeff think Laken Riley deserved to be murdered.
Sure. Except I don't know who that is. But ok.
Not surprising
Lmao.
Young woman, bright future, murdered by an illegal. Called Lincoln Riley by the Resident in Sleep at the Snore of the Union speech.
Also, fuck you.
Can you be any more of a parody of an idiot leftist?
Only if he cuts off his genitals (to make a point about virtue).
I like how you and sarc have created a strawman so you can deny the contributions to those items you list. All profit. No downside after all.
That so many people believe this is a major part of our problem.
Hatred of immigrants is definitely an American value, going back to the Chinese Exclusion Act which, if Trump's Deranged Supporters had any principles, they'd be defending right now.
summary: "If you won't subsidize them you hate them."
You tell that fallacy compulsively and consistently. Nobody hates them; they hate what they do acting 'entitled' to welfare and the USA (someone else's greener pasture) while literally taking more of the grass than the natives who planted that pasture.
I'm just so happy you have fully embraced the leftist appeals to morality/emotion so you can continue to ignore actual issues.
So many ideas.
3-in-4 immigrants vote for the more Ponzi Schemes party.
51% are on welfare compared to 30% native.
People believe it because it's more true than not and *is* part of the problem by a 75% margin. Self-serving ignorance doesn't make that go away.
first, it should be noted this article is talking about social security and medicaid.....
that said, immigration isn't the whole problem, but it definitely contributes. specifically those abusing the asylum process who do get public assistance and those using the loophole where they are counted as members of a household for someone else who gets welfare.
i know many who oppose open borders are not really motivated by this fact, but it is a fact. there is a math problem with the current situation. you have a finite number of people to take money from and a potentially infinite number of people willing to come and have it redistributed to them.
Why do people from countries with free healthcare and free college and free this and free that come here?
The haters will say it’s because they want to remake America in the image of what they fled.
They will tell you they want economic opportunity.
Who are you going to believe? Dirty foreigners who look different and sound different and dress different and eat funny-smelling food, or the people who hate them?
The migrant influx from Africa during the 18th century came here to work.
Surprised no one is arguing that with a straight face.
Sad.
…free healthcare and free college and free this and free that
Because it isn’t worth anything.
you do realize that absolutely nothing you just said had anything to do with what i said....... right?
And again…. “If you won’t pay my healthcare, college and this and that you hate me!” BS
The premise *is* — To conquer and consume instead of *EARN*.
Not Medicaid. That's the welfare program. The article is about Medicare, the program you and your employers pay taxes for. For some reason, all the proposed fixes don't touch the welfare and instead go after the program people who work pay into all of their working lives.
You may want to look up the Cloven-Pinken plan when they were at Columbia University years ago.
That should tell you everything you need to know about breaking America's financial back.
Trump will fix it all.[1]
[1] Trust me bro. TMB.
What will happen is that SS and Medicare will be partly funded by the federal government general fund and nobody will know the difference. Many countries do this.
What should happen is honorable politicians would honor their oath of office and LIMIT their Gov-Gun dictation by the correct Supreme Court ruling that deemed the "New Deal" UN-Constitutional.
Instead of continuously repeating the rogue governing of crooks threatening the courts and pushing to violate the people's law over their government.
CHARLIE HALL!
How big a drain is the SS disability fund? SS was never intended to be a welfare support system for working age people, so maybe it's time to cut that loose and pay for it out of the general fund.
there are a whole stack of contributors to the problem. the biggest factor, though, is that the whole thing is designed as a ponzi scheme that only works if people die before they collect more than they put in...... and most people live past that point.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/bs-xpm-2013-03-03-bs-ed-ehrlich-ssdi-20130303-story.html
Obama expanded SSA disability by a lot. Called it a win.
Why not deal with the outrageous deficit first?
SS/Medicare don't add to the deficit/debt. The auto-cuts in 2034 are kind of a plan on their own.
We're borrowing money to payback the money we got from SS and then immediately spent.
The OP wrote: "Still, insolvency is only a part of the problem presented by the two creaking entitlement schemes. Both Social Security and Medicare are projected to run deficits every year between now and 2098 (the end of the trustees' reports' 75-year budget window), and those deficits are the primary driver of the federal government's increasingly unable fiscal situation. Even if the two programs weren't expected to run out of cash in the mid-2030s, putting them on a more stable fiscal trajectory would be important for long-term economic growth. Refusing to fix the spending side of the equation likely ensures devastating tax increases in the next decade and beyond."
Why not "fix the spending side" and refuse to spend more on SS and Medicare? Why not admit that these programs were Ponzi schemes from the start? Why do libertarians want to fix these programs rather than let the Dems be exposed for lying for so many decades?
The OP wrote: "The best approach to Social Security would involve allowing American workers more freedom to plan for their own retirements—rather than raiding their paychecks to cover benefits for retirees, who in many cases are wealthier than the workers funding their benefits. Workers should be allowed to opt out of Social Security as part of any future changes."
Now that is a libertarian solution, but how does it address the insolvency issue with the current system that the OP says is so pressing? It doesn't, it is a less than serious fix to the insolvency issue. But we could address the insolvency issue head-on by admitting that the system was designed to fail eventually and so there should be no surprise when payouts will be reduced based on the available funds next decade.
The best approach to Social Security would involve allowing American workers more freedom to plan for their own retirements—rather than raiding their paychecks to cover benefits for retirees, who in many cases are wealthier than the workers funding their benefits.
And who got robbed for vastly more than current workers. How about we grant tax forgiveness to the retirees for the full annuity value of the foregone payments?
Tax forgiveness seems a good place to start. Maybe get rid of the claw back provisions for those who retire early but still want to work part time, and reduce the portion of SS benefits that are taxable, since the payout will be lower after 2034 or so.
I think it was Ron Paul who proposed that you could forgo SS at retirement and in exchange never have to pay Federal taxes for the rest of your life.
That plan was racist.
They weren't Ponzi schemes from the start. I think that rising life expectancy has affected Social Security and sharply rising medical costs have affected Medicare.
A Ponzi scheme is a venture dependent on increasing numbers of "investors" participating to pay current recipients. Given that SS had no meaningful investment returns (it's investments were the government promising itself to pay itself the money it was spending on other things) and began paying out recipients almost immediately, it meets the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. Increasing life expectancy was just the trigger for the inevitable.
And it was deliberately structured as such. Roosevelt knew what he was doing when he got it passed.
They were UN-Constitutional (Anti-USA) from the start.
And the consequences are 10-Fold. Heath-care isn’t affordable precisely because the laws of supply and demand were ‘Gunned’ away. Retirement savings are washed-away by run-away inflation precisely because the laws of supply and demand were ‘Gunned’ away.
These consequences of communism/socialism is not a new experience.
“It wasn’t (D)ifferent; this time either.”
Heath-care isn’t affordable precisely because the laws of supply and demand were ‘Gunned’ away.
Nope. Health-care isn't affordable because demand is highly inelastic and almost no-one wants to conduct cost-benefit analyses of end-of-life care.
Health-care isn’t affordable because demand is highly inelastic and almost no-one wants to
That is not true. When something is 'free' that will change the demand curve. Perhaps there's no one in your circle of friends that runs to the doctor for every hangnail because they have good insurance, or gets ibuprofen through their insurance plan because it's $3 a bottle if they get a prescription instead of $11 a bottle at the Safeway.
You seem to think health-care was never affordable at any point in time. Your analyses scope is broken already or should I just call it propaganda.
How about we just stop paying democrats?
Or at the very least impeach them all from political offices for blatant acts of treason against a USA.
Neither Biden nor Trump are going to propose anything to deal with Social Security or MediCare, especially not before November because any such plan will greatly upset a number of voting blocs that a political candidate does not want to make angry at them.
Sorry, but this will not be dealt with until it absolutely has to, if then, because the politician who tries to will be severely punished. The majority of the electorate does not want to hear the truth about these programs and thinks any problem with them is due to mismanagement, not the structure of the programs themselves.
The attitude is "This was promised, therefore I am entitled."
The attitude is “This was promised, therefore I am entitled.”
The attitude is “This was promised, I paid for it under threat, therefore I am entitled.”
True, that just makes my point even stronger.
The attitude is “This was promised,, we paid for it, therefore I am entitled.”
And that is correct. If you enter into a contract and later the other side tries to renege because they decide it will cost them too much, you're entitled to performance - entitled in the true sense.
This is sometimes seen with DB funds where a company will argue that they can't afford the promised benefits. Tough.
But I agree it's different when the government forces the contract in the first place - though in that case there is even less reason to let that side of the contract renege. Imagine an employer saying to their employees, henceforth we're witholding X% of your wages t pay for a pension, and later refusing to pay the amount promised.
How SS is actually structured is a slightly different matter.
Wrong. First of all, no American entered into a contract for social security; its forced on you by the government.
Second, you have have the 1960 Supreme Court case Fleming vs Nestor where the court ruled that it is not a contract and you can be denied payment.
The result of exchanging/switching the "halls of justice" into a supplier. There no longer is any "halls of justice" to turn to.
Why don't you read what I wrote as opposed to reacting to what you think I wrote?
Which is why when a private sector entity tries to set up a ponzi scheme it is considered a criminal fraud.
Which was Roosevelt's plan from the start. He explicitly said that by tying payments to the tax would make it impossible to get rid of.
It's more like this:
A carjacker forces you to hand over your keys and steals your car. You file a police report but the cops can't recover your car. They then say they'll just steal your grandson's car and give it to you.
I understand you feel entitled to receive SS benefits since you had money taken from you when you were younger. But you're not receiving the money that was taken from you years ago. You're receiving money taken now from younger people. Demanding you get all your SS "benefits" regardless of where it comes from is wrong, in my opinion, at least.
I'm getting on in years and am closer to the collection point than the beginning of the funding point. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to get rid of SS and Medicare. Only get rid of them. No "replacements". No BS about UBI. No disability. No crap paid out of the general fund.
Yes, it's a Ponzi scheme. That's something I've understood since I was 15. What is shocking is that it's a Ponzi scheme nobody is proposing anyone be sent to jail for foisting. But, given it's a Ponzi scheme, and you've robbed me at gunpoint to finance for the last thirty years, the very least you can do on it blowing up is to stop robbing me.
It is a ponzi scheme, and state lotteries are numbers rackets. It ain't illegal when you make the laws.
The only difference between the state lottery and the numbers rackets is that the numbers rackets had a higher payout percentage.
In fairness, the people who started this particular ponzi scheme are all long dead.
Okay. How about making their estates liable for damages?
But there are currently 537 elected officials at the national level who continue to let the Ponzi scheme go on.
Ain't this properly the responsibility of Congress? I'm not saying that the President doesn't have a role to play, but Congress is supposed to be taking care of the budget, writing laws, etc.
Can't blame congress as long as there is a Democrat who could catch shit for not addressing the issue, that is the first rule of modern Reason.
Repeal (and Don't Replace)!
Neither Trump or Biden will get my vote come the election, so whatever. They'll both blow through trillions before their last term ends and won't care about the wreckage they caused.
GWB tried the partly privatize SS thing letting people invest some of it on their own, but the backlash was incredibly strong.
Because SS is not really old people insurance. That's what it's sold as. But it's basically a way for the government to collect more revenue and spend it. The money was never invested, it was spent.
The money CANNOT be invested. It MUST be spent. By law.
Not so.
The law says the excess taxes must be invested.
And Invested in a very secure way.
So they are invested in US Treasury bonds, absolutely safe.
As expenses exceed taxes, those bonds are redeemed to fund the distributions.
For the children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Yeah, it's a neat trick moving the money around like that. From one hand to another. Like an infinite loop of tax & spend.
The surplus was spent and SS received IOUs in return. Which we're now making good on by borrowing.
And that's the problem. Any politician that even talks about reform will be crucified by the media and the opposite party.
While I don't support Biden or really Trump, this isn't a new problem. We have known about this for decades and yet no one seems to give a damn about solving it. Just like the debt. We screwed this up over a long term and now we need a long term fix. I just don't think we have the politilcal will to do untime it fails. We are falling down a finanical hole and we just don't care.
Chalk the ?USA? up to yet-another nation going bankrupt, experiencing hyper-inflation, party-wars, political corruption and division ....
ALL due to selling out to [Na]tional So[zi]alist Security.
It's not as-if there wasn't already enough history of the consequences of this ideology before the Nazi's conquered the USA.
Individual Liberty and Justice for all MUST be restored as the purpose of government if the USA is ever going to be great again.
Neither Biden nor Trump are going to propose anything to deal with Social Security or MediCare because neither have any idea how to solve the problem any more than they have an idea on how to pay ff the national debt.
Biden would prefer to let seniors twist in the wind when SS goes broke. It doesn't matter to him, he won't live that long anyway, and when Republicans bring it up he falsely claims they are throwing grandma off the cliff. Trump, on the other hand, can't think about anything but his "stolen election" lies. We're screwed.
Fake news. Biden's economic adviser says we can just keep printing money. What's the problem?
(Seriously, this guy is at a 3rd grade level of economics)
Fun facts: in 2023 the Feds spent $6.1 trillion and took in $4.4 trillion, leaving a deficit of $1.7 trillion.
But had they not funded Medicaid, "Income Security", and other miscellaneous mandatory spending, they would have had a small surplus.
They only stole ($6.1T/162.2M-working) $37,607/ea of our labors?
As the left continues it's plantation-owner and slaves mentality.
While your slave-labor gets treated like an 'insignificant' magical $ tree.
In addition to the small surplus, they would have had a large riot.
Nothing says Socialism/Communism like [WE] gangsters rioting for Gov-Guns to steal them a living instead of having to *earn* a living. *OR* trying to dodge the consequences of selling out their “halls of justice” to a Ponzi Scheme.
‘Guns’ don’t make sh*t – they never have. What-ever *earned* retirement one thought they were ensured has already been eaten-up by [WE] gangsters of theft. What-ever justice one thought they should be ensured was destroyed by selling their “halls of justice” to a Criminal Ponzi Scheme.
The zero-sum resources of Communism/Socialism are zero’ing in. Doubling-down on the cause will only magnify the horrible effect/consequence.
Republicans: We propose these modest adjustments to prolong SS solvency.
Democrats: See, Republicans are trying to push grandma off a cliff.
Reason: Neither side is trying to solve the problem.
^THIS +100000000000
republicans should have known that modest adjustments would reap the whirlwind of the Democrats and the Media. They should have made a more serious proposal.
How can there be an entire article about SS and Medicare with no mention of the best fixes? SSI is the welfare component of Social Security. It gives money to people who didn't pay in through work. Medicaid is the welfare component of Medicare. It gives healthcare to people who didn't pay in through work. Canceling the 2 welfare programs and keeping hands off the SS and Medicare workers and employers paid taxes for solves the funding problem once and for all.
Social Security is never going insolvent. This canard may have made sense in the 1930's and 1940's, but it is just a zombie fantasy now.
A bankrupt nation will definitely make it insolvent.
And P.S. there was no such thing as SS in 1930.
P.S.S. You missed the 's' in 30s. BTW, the Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35.
W tried. He invested lots of political capital to attempt to fix it. But nobody in Congress was having it.
The program deficits will be funded from the general treasury.
If the government can find the money for massive amounts of defense spending, they’ll find the money for the entitlements.
For W Bush&Trump and Biden&Obama fans, just imagine what social programs could benefit from all the growing interest we pay for the historic deficit spending since 2000. All that deficit with little to show for it.
Neither Biden nor Trump Has a Plan for It.
Let's reluctantly and strategically not switch horses midstream then.
Maybe we could put together a private plan and it will be so popular that everyone will pivot to that and then regular social security will wither on the vine.
When experts forecast something happening in 2035 - or even 2030 - it essentially translates to "sometime, maybe, or maybe never" to politicians, officials and the public. The only issue for politicians and officials is, "Can I be held responsible for the fallout if or when it hits the fan?" - and the response from most people is, "Wait ... what?"
The Angry Hippopotamus Plan:
Cash The Angry Hippo out now, at $0.25 on the $1 of what has already been stolen from him over the past 30+ years and stop stealing from him and his employer going forward and The Angry Hippo will not file for Social Security when eligible.