How to help Congress Save Social Security

Many recent articles in major US media outlets have been pointing to the impending insolvency of Social Security, which is ninety years old. The program has never missed a payment, helping millions of older Americans and their families live with dignity after they can no longer work.

The Upriver Press book Social Security for Future Generations,published in January 2026, provides policymakers, economists, and members of Congress with more than seventy practical, bipartisan, and economically sound proposals for Social Security reform. When we consider how many lives are at stake, we believe that the authors, Dr. John Turner and Serena McCarthy, have written one of the most important books of our times.

In this issue of The Upriver Current, Turner and McCarthy address a persistent barrier to Social Security reform, which is the reform process itself. Members of Congress tend to avoid the issue because the needed solutions are often seen as the “third rail” of politics. This analogy refers to what the third rail of the subway train will do to you if you touch it! Seeing this political reality, Turner and McCarthy offer three ways to help members of Congress overcome their fears and do what is necessary to help the American people.

Before you read the article, perhaps consider one simple act of civic engagement. Send an email to your elected officials (Senate and House) and encourage them to read this important book. You can include the following link in your email, which will give them the information they need: https://www.upriverpress.com/home/social-security. Upriver Press is also sending hand-enveloped information sheets about the book to every US lawmaker.

Keep reading books!

Glenn McMahan

“Social Security for Future Generations: Reforming the Reform Process”

‍ ‍By John A. Turner and Serena E. McCarthy

‍ ‍Pension Policy Center

‍ ‍July 2026

‍ ‍

Social Security faces insolvency in 2032, but reforms that raise taxes and cut benefits are difficult to pass. In fact, Social Security reform is one of the most difficult issues Congress faces, Many in Congress view it as the “third rail,” by which they mean too dangerous to touch.

As Congress delays, the required payroll tax increases and benefit cuts will grow larger. The Baby Boom generation, born in 1964, turned sixty-two in 2026. So far, that generation has been shielded from benefit cuts. Thus, the delay in Congress has shifted the burden of reforms to younger generations. For these reasons, an important part of saving Social Security from looming insolvency is to update the legislative process in order to facilitate more timely reforms. Hopefully we can avoid what happened in 1983 when Social Security reform occurred a few months before insolvency.

In Social Security for Future Generations(Turner and McCarthy 2026), we discuss ways to improve the Social Security reform process. It can be thought of as occurring in three stages: 1) the “discussing whether to discuss” stage, 2) the “discussing” stage, and 3) the “deciding” stage.

In July 2026, Congress was in stage 1, discussing legislation to establish a commission to develop reform proposals. Stage 2, the discussing stage, involves the development and evaluation of proposals. Stage 3, the deciding stage, involves voting to pass legislation, including voting by committees to advance the legislation and voting by both houses of Congress. The three stages can overlap. Reforms can get derailed at each stage.

Stage One: Begin the Reform Process

Our first proposal facilitates stage 1 of the reform process. It would require Congress to appoint a commission to recommend reforms for Social Security if the projected OASI Trust Fund depletion date is not more than ten years in the future. A commission could provide political cover for members of Congress when voting for difficult but necessary changes. The commission would hold public hearings and include economists, policy experts, and bipartisan, bicameral members of Congress.

A key issue is the balance between payroll tax increases and benefit cuts. Most politicians and experts involved in Social Security reform have proposed solutions that fall into one of three approaches: (A) a balanced reform of benefit cuts and payroll tax increases; (B) a reform weighted toward benefit cuts; (C) or one weighted toward payroll tax increases.

Complicating matters, payroll tax increases and benefit cuts can be across-the-board or they can be disproportionately targeted toward wealthier Americans. Rather than relying on the opinions of politicians and experts to address this question, the commission would help to resolve the partisan differences by conducting a national survey. The survey would describe across-the-board options and ask voters for feedback about their preferences. For example, some reform proposals have equally weighted benefit cuts and payroll tax increases. This approach is designed to fairly address competing viewpoints; however, that proposal may not reflect what most voters would prefer when choosing between realistic, across-the-board options.

Stage Two: Lower the Barriers to Reform

Our second proposal facilitates the discussing stage of the reform process. Though not a legal requirement, policymakers and policy analysts generally evaluate Social Security reform proposals over seventy-five years—currently 2026 to 2101. For a worker entering the labor force at age twenty in 2026, the review would cover their remaining lifetime, assuming they did not live past age ninety-five.

Here’s the problem with the current approach: It is impossible to predict demographic factors accurately seventy-five years into the future. Social Security program costs rise over time, partly due, over some period, to increasing life expectancy and falling birth rates. The Penn Wharton Budget Model (2026) found that “options that are most effective at delaying the (Social Security Trust Fund) depletion date are the least effective at reducing the seventy-five-year imbalance.”

While some people may view a shorter review period as irresponsible, Hoskins (2010) noted, “the United States stands out as one of the very few [countries] that uses a projection period as long as seventy-five years.” He noted, “several European countries, including France, use a thirty- to forty-year period.”

We propose a forty- or sixty-year review period. In a perfect world, a seventy-five-year period might be preferable to a shorter one because it addresses problems over a longer period. However, we argue that a forty- or sixty-year period would be better given the impossibility of accurate long-term predictions and the imperfections in our democracy that make reform difficult. Reforms over a shorter period could involve smaller changes that would be easier to pass, despite the “third rail” fears.

Stage Three: Facilitate Passing Legislation

Our third proposal facilitates the deciding stage of the reform process. The Senate requirement of sixty votes is a major hurdle. The Senate passed the 1983 reform by a vote of fifty-eight to fourteen. (Thirty-six Republicans and twenty-two Democrats voted in favor of the bill.) (Congress.gov 2026). The Senate adopted the Byrd Rule in 1985, requiring sixty votes to pass Social Security reform (Congress.gov 2022). The Senate has not enacted into law any solvency reform with sixty or more votes.

We propose that the Senate reduce the required votes from sixty to fifty-eight. The existing sixty-vote requirement for structuralchanges to Social Security, such as means testing or privatization, should be retained. This change generally would require a bipartisan vote. However, following Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1937 landslide victory, there were seventy-six Democratic Senators, which is obviously not the case today. To ensure bipartisan reforms, we propose that the Senate also require at least five minority party votes.

Alternatively, the Senate would retain the sixty-vote requirement, but if there was a Social Security reform vote with fifty-eight or fifty-nine votes, and at least five minority party votes, and negotiations over thirty days to reach sixty votes failed, then our proposal would take effect.

Our proposals would arguably facilitate the urgent need to reform Social Security, and they would result in more timely future reforms. By improving the legislative process, our proposals would result in smaller, easier-to-pass, reforms and a more equitable sharing of the burden of reforms across generations. In addition to discussing these issues, our book discusses reforms for restoring solvency and updating Social Security.