This is the latest in a series of columns about Social Security and retirement income planning.
Social Security insolvency is not an “if”but a “when” question — one that will likely need to be answered by U.S. senators in office now or those running in the midterm elections this year.
With senators serving six-year terms and the primary Social Security trust fund used to pay retirement benefits possibly expiring as soon as 2032, the 2026 class will have a lot to say about the program’s near- and long-term funding.
If Congress were to do nothing, the Social Security Trustees have most recently estimated, benefit cuts of nearly 20% are on the horizon, likely before 2034 but potentially as soon as 2032.
Whether lawmakers craft a sensible package of policies to address solvency, set up and empower a reform commission, or raise the retirement age significantly to avoid big tax increases for working Americans is still anyone’s guess. That’s according to Social Security experts Jason Fichtner, Marcia Mantell and Martha Shedden, who spoke with me about a recent attention-grabbing Wall Street Journal article on Social Security affecting the midterm elections.
“The next class of senators is going to have to deal with this,” said Fichtner, formerly the acting deputy commissioner of Social Security. “At the end of their term, checks will be reduced. That’s just the reality of the situation right now, and the unfortunate fact is that the delayed action on Social Security has made the problem a lot worse.”
What Fichtner “really fears” is that no legislative consensus is formed, and that Congress will move to borrow from the bond markets to plug the funding gap.
“That would represent both a profound shift in how the program is [viewed by the public] and funded and a really big risk to the broader economy,” he warned.
A Looming Crisis
Shedden, Fichtner and Mantell worry that Social Security’s insolvency will arrive before 2032.
“Here at the beginning of 2026, probably my biggest concern is that the reserve account will be fully tapped earlier than currently expected,” said Mantell, the founder of Mantell Retirement Consulting and an optimized claiming expert. “I think it was very smart of the head actuary to already note publicly that, since the Trustees' report from June 2025, with an early 2033 reserve date depletion, it’s more likely to be late 2032.”
This hedge stems from the likely long-term effects of the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act in early 2025, Mantell explained. The law repealed both the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision, meaningfully raising the amount of benefits the Social Security program is expected to pay out each year.
“There’s going to be a real hit to the program due to WEP and GPO repeal,” Mantell said. “That’s pretty well understood, but what we haven’t really wrapped numbers around yet is employment.”
As Mantell observed, current policy is affecting the flow of new immigrants who would otherwise have become workers and payers into Social Security. This is further tilting the already retiree-heavy balance of workers to retirees.
“Add to that the many layoffs we’ve seen in 2025, especially among higher-income, white-collar tech workers and federal workers, and I think we may be in for a bit of a shock,” Mantell warned.
Social Security works because workers and employers pay into the system, she said. The presence of fewer workers — especially fewer middle-income to high-income workers — will reduce revenue and thus further challenge solvency.
Possible Paths Forward
Shedden, the founder and president of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts, balanced optimism with real concerns.
“I’m still optimistic because of the political power and relevance of older Americans who want to see their benefits protected,” Shedden said. “I’m also encouraged because, as was identified in the 2025 Trustees’ report, there are a significant number of interconnected policy levers that could be pulled to correct the program. For example, we could eliminate the Social Security maximum taxable wage while slowly raising the payroll tax. That would make a big difference.”
Congress is likely to wait until the very last minute to act, Fichtner predicts, perhaps just three to six months out from pending benefit cuts.
“Sadly, nobody in this Congress seems to want to take leadership on making this a real pressing issue of the day,” Fichtner said. “My guess is that they’ll wait for a true crisis and then turn to a general revenue transfer that will plug the gap in the short term. At that point, when the crisis is very real, we could see some kind of reform commission finally be put together and empowered to chart a path forward.”
Fichtner pointed to the work of several Cato Institute scholars as a potentially appealing model for this future commission. They propose putting Social Security reforms in the hands of what’s known as a BRAC commission, inspired by the Base Realignment and Closure process for shuttering obsolete military bases after the Cold War.
“Lawmakers couldn’t propose amendments and wouldn’t need to take affirmative votes,” Fichtner observed. “They could only reject the entire package, which is a much higher bar for blocking reform. It would also give them meaningful political cover from any perceived undesirable reforms.”
Additional Concerns
Mantell said another issue she loses sleep over is the “one-sidedness” of trying to solve the solvency problem.
“Everyone looks at revenue vs. benefit payouts,” she said. “But they fail to address how the young folks are going to make up the difference in a lower benefit payout. If we’re going to either reduce benefits overall or add means testing, which are both reasonable ideas, where will the millennials and younger folks make up the additional income they will need for their retirements?”
That’s why Mantell encourages younger people to double down on 401(k) savings, but that’s not the reality for most workers. She said that wealth managers need to do more to highlight the importance of private savings, come what may with Social Security.
“Of course, the young folks are burdened with student loan debt, high housing and rent costs, and high inflation,” Mantell warned. “It’s not clear that they would be able to save more anyway.”
Finally, Mantell said, increasing the full retirement age to 70, an idea floated by some Republican politicians, is “insane” in her book.
“Not for the white-collar, sit-at-your-desk workers, but for the almost 50% of Americans who sling a hammer for a living or stand on their feet all day,” Mantell said. “There is little chance the blue-collar and service-sector folks can possibly make it until 67 today, let alone 70 tomorrow.”
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.