Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Passages

(4,633 posts)
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 10:40 AM 16 hrs ago

Robert Reich: They don't want you to know the REAL reason Social Security is in trouble

But I'm going to tell you anyway

Robert Reich
Jun 12, 2026

Friends,

The trustees of the Social Security fund said Tuesday that the fund will be depleted by late 2032, a year earlier than the trustees’ projection last year of 2033. If nothing is done, benefits will automatically be cut six years from now.

The common understanding is that Social Security’s shortfall is due to the huge postwar baby boom, now retiring, and to America’s increasing life expectancy. The usual recommended fix is to reduce Social Security benefits or raise the age of eligibility. As Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, warned Monday, “entitlement programs” like Social Security “have to be adjusted and fixed.” He said Republicans will introduce a plan to do that. Brace yourselves.

I used to be a Social Security trustee, and I call bullsh*t.

The baby boom can’t be blamed for Social Security’s shortfall. The Greenspan Commission, which in 1983 recommended the reforms that Congress then made — raising Social Security payroll taxes and also raising the eligibility age for collecting Social Security benefits — knew all about the baby boom and figured it into its calculations. (Early boomers like me can now start collecting full benefits at age 66; late boomers born after 1960 have to wait until they’re 67 to collect full benefits.)

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/they-dont-want-you-to-know-the-real?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=365422&post_id=199355804&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=5slj1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Robert Reich: They don't want you to know the REAL reason Social Security is in trouble (Original Post) Passages 16 hrs ago OP
Thank you, and I repeat Cosmocat 15 hrs ago #1
Assuming, of course... GiqueCee 14 hrs ago #2
It's all about messaging Soul_of_Wit 13 hrs ago #14
Yes, most definitely. Passages 14 hrs ago #4
Raising the cap shouldn't even be controversial. North Coast Lawyer 14 hrs ago #3
Don't raise it. Remove it. multigraincracker 14 hrs ago #5
⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ This! ⬆️ ⬆️ ⬆️ Seinan Sensei 14 hrs ago #7
SS can be fixed. SS won't be fixed. twodogsbarking 14 hrs ago #6
First, Miguelito Loveless 14 hrs ago #8
The easiest way to insure Social Security will remain solvent is to increase the maximum amount that's taxable. patphil 14 hrs ago #9
Increase the amount of income that is taxable from $184,500. to NO CAP dave99 13 hrs ago #13
Didn't one of the Bushes also loot it to fund the Iraq war? Wicked Blue 13 hrs ago #10
Yes but Obama put it back on the books. Qutzupalotl 49 min ago #18
The shortfall is due to income inequality Soul_of_Wit 13 hrs ago #11
Of course relogic 13 hrs ago #12
Employers hate paying their share of FICA taxes xuplate 13 hrs ago #15
The original income cap as well as the amounts of benefits snot 12 hrs ago #16
Valuable information, thank you. Passages 10 hrs ago #17

Cosmocat

(15,500 posts)
1. Thank you, and I repeat
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 11:43 AM
15 hrs ago

that this should be at top of the Democratic 2026 Mid Term agenda.

"Give us a majority in the House and Senate and will will put a bill on the president's desk to ensure SS solvency for the the next century."

GiqueCee

(4,962 posts)
2. Assuming, of course...
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 12:25 PM
14 hrs ago

... that we'll have the votes to override Trump's inevitable veto of such a bill.

Soul_of_Wit

(187 posts)
14. It's all about messaging
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 01:36 PM
13 hrs ago

Republican congress critters can make it veto proof. -or- Democrats can paint them as not saving Social Security. Create high-contrast options. The clock is ticking. The problem is early next decade. Income inequality is not slowing down, so the clock will continue to tick faster.

North Coast Lawyer

(281 posts)
3. Raising the cap shouldn't even be controversial.
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 12:26 PM
14 hrs ago

But it is -- because with a lot of rich people more is never enough.

multigraincracker

(38,198 posts)
5. Don't raise it. Remove it.
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 12:53 PM
14 hrs ago

Let billionaires save SS and the country. They owe it to us to us as we are the ones they made those billions off of.

patphil

(9,278 posts)
9. The easiest way to insure Social Security will remain solvent is to increase the maximum amount that's taxable.
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 01:07 PM
14 hrs ago

Increase the amount of income that is taxable from $184,500. to $500,000.
But that would mean taking money away from a lot of rich people, something the republicans don't want to do.
What they want is to push Social Security into a crisis, and then say the only answer is privatization of the fund.
I don't think I need to tell you how bad that would be for those Americans that are paying into the fund each year, and will need that money to supplement other sources of retirement income. There's no doubt we'd end up paying in more, and getting back less.
Pension funds are disappearing, or being reduced in value. 401K's and IRA's can't get the job done for people who don't have enough income to put into savings, and that's just about all of us in the lower and middle classes.

There seems to be a determined effort by the republicans to eliminate the entire middle class, creating one gigantic lower class at the bottom, and a small super rich class at the top.

Wicked Blue

(9,070 posts)
10. Didn't one of the Bushes also loot it to fund the Iraq war?
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 01:11 PM
13 hrs ago

I vaguely remember reading something about it years ago.

Qutzupalotl

(15,874 posts)
18. Yes but Obama put it back on the books.
Sat Jun 13, 2026, 02:20 AM
49 min ago

When he first got into office. Then the right tried to say that was Obama’s new spending.

Soul_of_Wit

(187 posts)
11. The shortfall is due to income inequality
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 01:16 PM
13 hrs ago

The Greenspan solution relies upon median income and average income staying closer together. Once they drift apart (the rich get richer) then the contributions from the existing cap fall short. This shortfall accelerates as income inequality accelerates. They already raised the retirement age.

The short-term solution is raising the cap. You don't even need to eliminate the cap. Even the unicorn version of increasing benefits would not require elimination of the cap. The long-term solution for senior inflation involves single-payer healthcare to significantly lower the cost of being a senior. Making Americans healthier would be a cost-saving side benefit of taking the profit motive out of our healthcare system.

relogic

(310 posts)
12. Of course
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 01:21 PM
13 hrs ago

there were and are very practical ways to address the stability of the SS fund. Repukes intentions were never to invent or stabilize this successful, government administered, wage investment against poverty.

Any solutions proposed are just wing flapping. Don’t be mislead by the overtures for solutions. These insincere fiscal posturings from “the right” provide are cover for removing this socialistic benefit from the moment FDR signed onto it.

xuplate

(248 posts)
15. Employers hate paying their share of FICA taxes
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 01:44 PM
13 hrs ago

That is the real reason why conservative politicians back lower payroll taxes—not to benefit wage earners.

snot

(11,879 posts)
16. The original income cap as well as the amounts of benefits
Fri Jun 12, 2026, 02:18 PM
12 hrs ago

should from the beginning have been pegged to REAL inflation in the REAL necessities of life, i.e., food, housing, utilities, medical care, etc., without all the "hedonic" and other adjustments that were introduced into the calculation of the CPI through subsequent decades.

One might not agree with everything in the article from which the excerpt below is taken, but it does a good job of summarizing the ways in which CPI has been rigged (from https://brownstone.org/articles/since-lockdowns-a-12-gdp-loss-half-of-us-dollar-purchasing-power-stolen/ ):

In 1983, owners’ equivalent rent replaced basic housing prices. The new formula was based on an estimate of what homeowners would have to pay to rent their own homes. But in real life, people pay mortgages, property taxes, and home prices. When home prices and mortgage rates rise faster than rents, the new formula understates the housing inflation real households face.

In 1996, the Boskin Commission announced that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was overstated because people substitute lower-priced goods for higher-priced goods which are too slow in being calculated. The agency made the correction to eliminate the bias in the fixed basket of goods. The problem is that every single adjustment ended up forcing the reported rate to be less than a plain addition of the same goods over time.

In 1998, there was a new fashion for hedonic adjustments. This stemmed from an observation that quality is always improving, especially in digital goods and computer functioning. The idea is that you might be paying the same or even more but you are getting more bang for your buck with quality shifts. You guessed it: hedonic adjustments drew the inflation rate lower. Notably, hedonic adjustments never run the other way, raising prices when quality decreases. [Note: a repair technician once told me that refrigerators used to last 30 years but are often now kaput after 3.]

In 1999, a geometric mean formula replaced arithmetic mean for most CPI components. This was intended to capture substitution effects. This was the change that ended up disguising the increase in medical service costs. By looking at consumed services rather than actual prices, the inflation rate in this sector ended up burying inflationary trends. This highly technical adjustment completely ignored all the ways in which substitution is a behavioral adaptation to inflation, not a reduction in the inflation experienced.

In 2002, we got a continuation of this same method with new “chained CPI” which changes the basket weighting based on new purchasing patterns. Sure, if people buy less beef and more chicken, the household will experience inflation in a different way. But this ignores the manner in which the substitutions themselves are a response to higher prices. In 2017, the new calculation was applied to taxes causing people to pay more than they otherwise would have under the old method.

In 2018, the hedonic adjustment strategy was expanded to a huge new range of products including smartphones, residential telephone services, internet services, and cable and satellite television. In 2020, at the same time the composition of M1 was changed and not retrospectively applied such that the data is essentially useless. Following money supply data became more difficult. Then in 2024, the Bureau of Labor Statistics stopped looking at the actual cost of medical services and started only looking at claims, completing the consumption-only bias against actual posted prices [i.e., failing to capture the fact that many consumers had no insurance, etc]. In 2025, a month went by with no data collection at all.

So what happens when we strip all this away and examine actual prices as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, without all the many adjustments? We find that a basket of goods and services that cost $100 in 1980 costs $515 per the Reality Index in 2025. The official CPI reports only $391.

That means that real prices have run 32% higher over 45 years than the government reports. Over a 55-year window, the Reality Index ran 54.4% faster than CPI.

To put it another way, consider the loss of purchasing power since 1980. According to the CPI, the loss has been to make $1 in 1980 worth only 26 cents. According to the Reality Index, the loss is greater: $1 in 1980 is now worth only 19 cents. By any standard, that is a shocking devaluation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Robert Reich: They don't ...