Politicians Want To Avoid Reforming Social Security and Medicare. You Will Pay the Price.
Inflation is a silent tax—and the most painful way to finance government promises.
Your representatives may finally grab the feared "third rail" of U.S. politics. When the Social Security and Medicare trust funds run out in the early 2030s, the law is clear: Benefits must be slashed. That would mean a roughly 24 percent cut to Social Security checks and an 11 percent cut to Medicare benefits. But Congress almost certainly won't let that happen.
The easy, though irresponsible, political path may seem obvious: Change the law, keep benefits whole, and pay by borrowing the money. This way legislators won't have to cast unpopular votes for spending cuts or tax hikes. This makes sense only if the consequences won't become clear until much later, after voters have forgotten all about it.
What most people are missing is that this time, the consequences may show up quickly. Inflation may not wait for debt to pile up. It can arrive the moment Congress commits to that debt-ridden path.
Unfortunately, this part may not be so obvious to legislators looking at projections.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, borrowing to cover Social Security and Medicare shortfalls would push federal debt to about 156 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2055. These shortfalls account for roughly $116 trillion, including interest, over those 30 years. In spite of all this debt, the projections assume inflation stays low for decades and interest rates only go up very slowly. That calm outlook is misleading.
Think of government debt like shares in a company, which have value based on what investors believe they will earn in the future. Government debt works the same way: Its value depends on whether those who buy it believe future primary surpluses—revenue minus spending, excluding interest—will be sufficient to pay for that government's promises and obligations.
When the belief weakens, markets don't just sit around and wait for the reckoning. They adjust immediately. And in the United States, that adjustment usually shows up as inflation.
We saw this happen just a few years ago, between 2020 and 2022, when Congress approved about $5 trillion in debt-financed spending with no clear payment plan. Households received pandemic stimulus checks, spent them quickly, and saw no reason to expect higher taxes or fewer services. They were right. The post-pandemic era didn't bring austerity.
Inflation followed, and not simply because the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply. People realized the new debt lacked a credible plan behind it. The dollar's buying power weakened until the real value of government debt fell back in line with the expected future primary surpluses available to back it. By the time inflation peaked at 9 percent in 2022, federal debt equaling about 10 percent of GDP had effectively been erased through higher prices.
Voters hated the inflation, and they made that clear at the ballot box in 2024.
The entitlement deadline could trigger an even stronger reaction. Senators elected this year will be tempted to borrow everything needed to preserve benefits. But without serious reform, new revenue and spending restraint, investors may not wait to see whether some future Congress eventually finds a way to pay.
If they reprice U.S. debt right away, prices could rise much faster than official forecasts suggest—perhaps almost immediately. Not because the debt is huge (that's already true), but because people no longer trust the plan behind all that future debt.
At that point, the Fed would be in a terrible position. Raising interest rates to fight inflation would also immediately drive up government borrowing costs on debt that must be rolled over quickly. Paying higher-interest bills with even more debt would be like paying off one credit card with another. The Fed would be forced to choose between tolerating inflation or triggering a deeper fiscal crisis.
Either way, the costs would be severe.
Inflation is a silent, unvoted-on tax. It eats away at savings, pensions, and fixed incomes. It hurts retirees who did everything right and relied on safe assets. It squeezes workers whose paychecks don't keep up with rising prices. It pushes families to spend more on groceries, rent, energy, and health care. And it distorts the entire economy by rewarding speculation over productive investment.
No one escapes. Not the poor. Not the middle class. Not even the wealthy. It's the most painful way to finance government promises.
Legislators know this, but reform is hard. The temptation is to borrow, avoid conflict, and let others clean up the mess when political prospects are better. But this time, inflation could break out on the same legislature's watch. The reckoning will not be postponed, and neither will accountability. As in 2021, voters will pay first, and then they will assign blame.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM
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
If you are counting on social security to live in the future you're an irresponsible moron. My plan is for ss to be part of my beer/entertainment budget.
There won't be any beer or entertainment for sale after the collapse. If you survive, you'll have to brew your own beer and have shows in the barn.
Barnyard shows... great so the Tijuanans will also have taken ove.
I don't own a barn, but I know several people that brew beer and grow appropriate crops.
I disagree. Hunting democrats makes for great entertainment.
Or you're just desperate and have no reasonable choice. You can't put away money you don't have, and you don't have money you don't make...and for most of that, that involves the fortunes of others, not so much informed choices we had at a time we could've done anything about it.
There is always choice. I see people who make far less than me driving new cars, having the latest iPhone, and other bad choices.
Exactly. 25 streaming services, gaming consoles, Door Dash, multiple pets, are a few more.
Still have the XR, and my truck is a 2016. When I do get a new one I buy a 2 yr old so it's cheaper than new but still is under warranty.
Icwydt not mentioning Canadian wines.
Which doesn't really matter because congressional (in)action to the entitlements crisis will invariably result in massive inflation that will destroy the savings you are counting on. (My savings, too.)
Dollars are only one basket.
Eliminating the democrat party would allow us to fix things.
Cunt-clusion to article says:
"As in 2021, voters will pay first, and then they will assign blame."
Some swill blame the Demon-Craps, the illegal sub-humans, and the workers in ferriner lands, and (if they are still allowed to cast meaningful votes), they swill vote for Alex Jones and the Lizard People... And always MORE AND MORE ICE, KGB, KKK, Gestapo, and STASI goons, and tariff-taxes, to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH all of those BAD-BAD-BAD un-AmeriKKKans!
Some swill blame the evil, greedy capitalists, who put profits before people! They swill vote for Bernie Sanders, or his corpse, if there is any difference between these two in the first place.
Some will vote for sanity and small Government Almighty, butt who cares about THEM?!?! THOSE stupid bastards give us NO emotional relief by providing us self-righteous assholes with suitable scapegoats!
There is no possibility that Congress will stop increasing deficit spending. That's why we're doomed to a total economic collapse and a Mad Max nightmare depression. Fortunately for me, at my age my life should be coming to a close before that happens. Those of you who are younger and healthier need to stock your bunkers. Or, make arrangements to end your life when the food riots start, if you're just not up for that.
OT Post:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-wanted-penn-station-dulles-airport-named-for-him-in-schumer-deal/ar-AA1VPrlZ?ocid=BingNewsSerp
WASHINGTON − President Donald Trump wanted New York's Penn Station and Virginia's Dulles International Airport named after him in exchange for dropping his freeze on billions of federal dollars for a New York tunnel project...
SQRLSY Cumment:
In other news, Trump said that he would release the Congress-approved funds to NASA, only if NASA would re-name "Uranus" to becum "Trump's Anus"!
Also, if NYC politicians swill merely rename "NYC" to becum "Trumpkingrad", then Trump pinky-swears that He will SNOT, after all, send for ICE and Ice-Storm-Trooper-Barbie and KGB and Gestapo and KKK and STASI thugs to be sent to bust up "Trumpkingrad"!
(The newly renamed "Trumpkingrad" swill becum HOLY Grounds, where illegal sub-humans are universally despised, ass Jesus Christ Himself taught us to despise them, and ICE goons swill becum totally SNOT needed!)
Minor detail; we did in fact vote for the politicians who enact inflation raising bills.
I notice you also follow the tradition of ignoring fraud, and acting like social security is only retirement, ignoring the disability part where the fraud runs rampant.
Yeah, simply because that. Or at least other effects on the dollar are so small they're negligible for policy purposes. Sure, there were temporary increases in the velocity of dollars in some sectors, but that's not that big a deal. Demand for dollars dropped for a while, lowering the price of them, but that'd eventually be made up. It's only the actual FRN equivalent that's had its quantity lastingly increased; why do you have to make the picture seem more complicated than it is?
And that has little to do with SS or Medicare. Why can't you report on these things straightforwardly instead of in a way to conflate them? To the extent there's a connection, the causality runs the opposite way from what you imply. People discount for inflation, yeah.
It would have to do with SS if SS were meaningfully collateralized. But since the T-bills are just accounted for one way or another, there's no more for the Fed to issue notes on than if the SS accounting were not there.
The only countries I know of that've achieved significant reform of pension overhangs are those whose credit is nowhere near as good as that of the USA. The USA has this problem because its credit has been so damn good...and everywhere else's credit is only good because the US's is.
But really, how serious is this problem? Everyone sees it, so it's really not a problem except in the "hot potato" sense among those who want to game it as if it doesn't exist. The world has certain assets. Does it really matter how they're denominated? The idea that there's going to be a "collapse" proportional to discounting is silly. The actual assets are still there, regardless of how you account for them.
So, for instance, you own a home with a certain real estate value. If the amount you could sell it for dropped to 0, it'd still be just as functional as your home.
They will never cut benefits. That is fear mongering. They most likely will just tax the rich more or borrow more. Ideally they should either raise the payroll tax if people want the program, phase it out if people dont want it, or privatize it.
You expect career criminals to do anything except line their own pockets?
Veronique,
I have read your posts on Social Security and wonder why you do not advocate for allowing payouts to be reduced in 2033 to match what revenue is coming into the system.
In your Jan 31, 2024 policy brief, you called for a nuanced and comprehensive approach, but knowing that such legislation is not likely to pass through our ideologically divided Congress, why not direct efforts towards an attainable goal that "maintains the program’s financing discipline, preserves the connection between worker contributions and their benefits, and ameliorates intergenerational inequities, while at the same time preserving the health of our private retirement savings system."
Let the Dems cry that Repubs are starving grandma. And let the Repubs cry that Dem profligacy caused the problem. They will both have their talking points while the bottom line and fiscal sanity have been secured.
Another hypocritical article. Reason largely supports democrat hegemony.
Since there is no actual money in the so called trust fund why would it make a difference if it runs out?
There’s only two ways to pay off our debt, one acknowledging the problem, balancing the budget, and collecting enough taxes to pay down the dept.
The other is to go Weimar and inflate to the point where we can pay off the debt, all while pointing fingers at other people who must be to blame.
Not hard to guess what’s coming.
I usually don't blame politicians less, but ultimately it's the voters who want to avoid reforming the programs. Whenever Republicans have suggested doing something about it, the Democrats have crucified them and the public has sided with the Dems. This is a classic case of Mencken's "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." Unfortunately those of us who know better can't avoid getting the same thing, but so long as Democrats are willing to pander, what would Republicans achieve by opposing them other than committing political suicide?