The debate over social security has once again drifted to the margins of politics. With checks sent month to month, few voters and fewer candidates are paying attention to the program’s deteriorating finances as the election approaches.

This should surprise no one, as the program, as a national policy priority, has disappeared every election year for the past decade. Social Security is the Ferris Bueller of politics.

“Bull? Bueller? Bueller?

Currently, nearly 70 million people are receiving benefits and another 30 million are on the cusp of retirement. Given the most recent data, the average 80-year-old expects to survive longer than the program’s ability to pay expected benefits. No one knows when the program might end up in insolvency, or how the sequences of that event might ripple out to the millions of people who rely on the system.

These people should be looking to this election cycle for answers, but the details just aren’t there. This is not the problem of one person, one party, or one election race. Across the country, politicians, regardless of party, offer little more than hackneyed clichés of concern assuring voters that they will “protect Social Security!” »

Donald Trump promised to do nothing. He has also vaguely committed to eliminating taxation of social security benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, the cost of this change is approximately $11 trillion, which would likely come from future retirees. Without knowing how Congress would pay for this trinket, this is just chicken-in-all-out politics.

This change would mean someone in a high income bracket could keep $20,000 more. In exchange, the number of Social Security beneficiaries living in poverty would be starts to swell In 2031.

In response, the Trump campaign said a second Trump administration would boost funding for Social Security by “unleashing a new economic boom.” That response bears an uncanny resemblance to the campaign promise of the first Trump administration, which watched from the sidelines as Social Security’s finances collapsed during its tenure.

The program has been around for nearly 100 years, and about a third of the program’s deficit emerged during the four years Trump served in the Oval Office.

On the other side of the ballot, Kamala Harris promised “Strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the long term by making millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share of taxes.” It’s not a plan. This is a phrase designed to let voters hear what they want to hear.

This theme is similar to what Joe Biden promised during his last campaign, when he wanted to increase payroll taxes on people earning more than $400,000. This promise brought nothing. While wages have increased about 32% since then, the definition of super-rich hasn’t budged a single cent. If the rich had kept pace with everyone else, the threshold this time would be closer to $550,000.

Why do politicians respond to these alarming prospects with meaningless rhetoric? The reason is the Social Security Trust Fund. Congress originally established the reserve to generate interest income for the program. Since 2010, the reserve has served as a cushion between politicians and the consequences of legislative neglect.

With the Trust Fund in place, checks are sent on time and in full each month. Each year since 2021, politicians have depended a little more on the contribution of the Trust Fund. This continuity ensures that nothing wakes the sleeping voter.

The empty rhetoric circulating throughout this campaign is creating more of a problem that most voters are aware of. The exchange of phrases creates the illusion among voters that the program has the attention of Washington. In this way, status quo politics appears to voters as a heated and active debate where parties fight for every inch of ground before finalizing a deal. In reality, Congress is simply burning the Trust Fund to avoid doing its job.

The problem with Social Security is the passage of time and the willingness of voters to wait until politicians stop twiddling their thumbs.

Brenton Smith writes on the issue of Social Security reform in Barron’s, Forbes, MarketWatch, TheHill, USAToday and more. Contact him at [email protected].