On Tuesday an alarm bell with a postage stamp was sent to Congress. One letter was sent to Vice President J.D. Vance, who is also president of the Senate. An identical letter was sent to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
Here is the alarm bell:
“We are writing to notify you that we project that the reserves held in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will fall below 20 percent of annual cost in the near future, without legislation to address the imbalance between Social Security program revenues and benefits.”
The Future Is Just About Now
The “near future,” turns out to be the fourth quarter of 2031. That’s a tad over five years from now. The program that funds retirement for millions of retirees is headed for trouble in less time than the payment schedule of a consumer car loan.
Social Security needs to change. Quickly.
That’s kind of like asking the Titanic to turn faster than a speedboat.
It’s also tragically soon if you are approaching retirement, or already retired.
Without action by Congress, benefits will need to be cut by an estimated 22 percent.
This is not new information. We’ve been told there was a sustainability problem for many years. You’d need to be a full-time resident of Margaritaville to be surprised.
Still. Just five years away? Really?
Could our elected leaders be this irresponsible?
Absolutely.
A strong case can be made that our elected leaders aren’t just haplessly irresponsible. They are willfully irresponsible.
That’s a whole ‘nuther level.
Republican Fingers Point At Republican Policies
The case for the Republican Party being willfully irresponsible is easy to make. The Social Security Trustees, all Republicans, make it themselves in the summary of their report. Two of the three reasons they identify for worsening conditions are a direct result of Republican goals.
- Lower near-term and long-term immigration that will reduce the number of workers, taxable payroll and projected GDP.
- The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the Republican tax cut that reduces federal tax revenues.
This is not unique to Donald Trump’s presidency. Cutting taxes, regardless of consequences, is a long-term Republican Party goal.
Disappearing An Earlier Treasury Secretary
Skeptical? Then consider events like the sudden removal of Treasury Secretary O’Neill in 2002. It resulted in the last-minute removal of generational deficit information from the trustees report that year. This was information O’Neill had been eager to add to the report.
Why was that information a problem?
Because the generational accounting that O’Neill had sought showed a gigantic $43 trillion deficit for funding Social Security.
The financial condition of Social Security was far worse when measured beyond the 75-year horizon traditionally used by the Social Security actuaries.
Pushing a tax cut wouldn’t look good against that information.
So what happened?
President George W. Bush removed O’Neill with amazing speed. He replaced O’Neill with John W. Snow. Snow, in turn, had the generational deficit material cut from the trustees report. He went on to sell an unneeded tax cut. (You can read my column about that here and a New York Times article about the event here. )
This Is Now
Since 2002 the fiscal situation has gotten worse, not better. The 2026 trustees report, which now includes the calculations O’Neill sought, shows the true generational deficit is $71.9 trillion, vastly more than the $29.3 trillion 75-year deficit or the $43 trillion deficit O’Neill’s report would have revealed.
With or without Donald Trump, the Republican Party is the party of tax cuts. Taxes should always be lower, regardless of impact on the broad public good.
Does that mean we should all become Democrats?
No way.
If you examine bills to reform Social Security sponsored by Democrats, virtually all call for higher taxes that will create new or expanded benefits. They don’t call for higher taxes to strengthen the existing program. Democrats gleefully increase public spending and justify it by calling it “investment.” Sometimes it is and reduces future public spending. But most of the time it is just spending for votes.
The truly sad thing is that Social Security is a solvable problem.
Related columns:
Scott Burns, “The $43 Trillion Surprise,” 6/1/2003: https://scottburns.com/the-43-trillion-surprise/
Scott Burns, “Here’s Proof We Can Afford the Future… And So Can Our Grandchildren,” 12/29/2025: https://scottburns.com/heres-proof-we-can-afford-the-future-and-so-can-our-grandchildren/
Scott Burns, “How Much Would You Pay For A Solvent Country?,” 7/2/2025: https://scottburns.com/how-much-would-you-pay-for-a-solvent-country/
Scott Burns, “Can We Fix Social Security?”, 11/05/2023: https://scottburns.com/can-we-fix-social-security/
Sources and References:
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “The Reformer, an interactive tool to fix Social Security,” https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
Marcus Nunes, “A Number for the Fiscal Wall,” 6/05/2026: https://substack.com/home/post/p-200667119
Kent Smetters and Hangjunl He, “When Does Federal Debt Reach Unsustainable Levels? Spring 2006 – Onward,” 6/4/2026: https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/p/2026-06-02-when-does-federal-debt-reach-unsustainable-levels/
Andrew Biggs, “A Number for the Fiscal Wall,” 6/9/2026: https://substack.com/@andrewgbiggs
A Summary of the 2026 Annual Reports: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
Board of Trustees letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2026/709letter_OASI_House_2026.pdf
Board of Trustees letter to President of the Senate, J.D. Vance: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2026/709letter_OASI_Senate_2026.pdf
Edmund L. Andrews, “Upheaval In The Treasury: The Treasury Secretary; Bush, In Shake-Up Of Cabinet Ousts Treasury Leader,” 12/7/2002: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/07/us/upheaval-treasury-treasury-secretary-bush-shake-up-cabinet-ousts-treasury-leader.html
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
This information is distributed for education purposes, and it is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or endorsement of any particular security, product, or service.
Photo: Scott Burns, 5/25 Evening light in Hill Country
(c) Scott Burns, 2026