You may be right about the wisdom of that if it could be sold as a way of taking the subject off the table — the political football table, that is, because I agree that because our official way of projecting future financial viability shows a potential problem, we must continue watching carefully and preparing contingency plans.

Whatever approach is taken — that it does not belong in our discussions at all right now (as I originally suggested) or that we can make some very modest payroll tax increases now (or beginning when, say, unemployment drops below 6%) to make it more certain we never have a problem) — there will be attacks from those who have doubled down on the need for “entitlement reform.” It will have to be supported by a firm commitment to long term defense against those attacks, a determination to paint the attackers into a corner as out-of-touch opponents of what Americans want. I haven’t seen a willingness or ability of any liberals or progressives in office to paint anyone into a corner, especially not the so-called Beltway Centrists who are most wedded to undermining Social Security. The Democrats seem to be very afraid of those VSPs (Very Serious People) as they are sometimes called.

In other words, there is a good chance that the Social Security trust funds will eventually run out of money (forcing a reduction in benefits) if no changes are made to the program, but it’s not a certainty. One defensible approach to reforming Social Security is to leave it alone as long as the projections don’t make it clear whether any changes are needed.

structuring it as welfare would not work in America. we have long political history of hating welfare and cutting it to the bone and beyond.

and the workers have absorbed the ethic.

even I think we are better off if we pay for it ourselves. directly and transparently.

i agree. l am author of “plan” to raise payroll tax one tenth of one percent WHENEVER the ten year forecast is that the Trust Fund will fall below the one year reserve. it would be easy enough to include in the plan a requirement to lower the tax should the Trust Fund (after 2040) exceed, say 300% of one year’s reserves.

but it would be foolish to, for example, not raise the payroll tax one half of one tenth of one percent now and each year until the “actual future” is more evident. no one would feel the raise, and it would “fund” SS forever, and so presumably shut up the Liars.

if it overshoots, that can be corrected very timely with no disruption to anyone or anything.

you still seem to have trouble with the idea of paying your debts. the money the treasury borrowed from SS needs to be paid back just as if they had borrowed it from China or Pete Peterson.