Social Security's 90th anniversary is marked by funding threats and
privatization talk
[August 14, 2025]
By FATIMA HUSSEIN
WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social
Security Act into law 90 years ago this week, he vowed it would provide
economic stability to older people while giving the U.S. "an economic
structure of vastly greater soundness.”
Today, the program provides benefits to almost 69 million Americans
monthly. It's a major source of income for people over 65 and is popular
across the country and political lines.
It also looks more threatened than ever.
Just as it has for decades, Social Security faces a looming shortfall in
money to pay full benefits. Since President Donald Trump took office the
program has faced more tumult. Agency staffing has been slashed. Unions
and advocacy groups concerned about sharing sensitive information have
sued. Trump administration officials including the president for months
falsely claimed millions of dead people were receiving Social Security
benefits. Former top adviser Elon Musk called the program a potential
“Ponzi scheme."
Trump and other Republicans have said they will not cut Social Security
benefits. Yet the program remains far from the sound economic system
that FDR envisioned 90 years ago, due to changes made — and not made —
under both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Here’s a look at past and current challenges to Social Security, the
proposed solutions and what it could take to shore up the program.
The go-broke date has been moved up
The so-called go-broke date — or the date at which Social Security will
no longer have enough funds to pay full benefits — has been moved up to
2034, instead of last year’s estimate of 2035. After that point, Social
Security would only be able to pay 81% of benefits, according to an
annual report released in June. The earlier date came as new legislation
affecting Social Security benefits have contributed to earlier projected
depletion dates, the report concluded.
The Social Security Fairness Act, signed into law by former President
Joe Biden and enacted in January, had an impact. It repealed the
Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions,
increasing Social Security benefit levels for former public workers.
Republicans’ new tax legislation signed into law in July will accelerate
the insolvency of Social Security, said Brendan Duke at the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
“They haven’t laid out an idea to fix it yet," he said.
The privatization conversation has been revived
The notion of privatizing Social Security surfaced most recently when
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month said new tax-deferred
investment accounts dubbed “ Trump accounts ” may serve as a “ backdoor
to privatization," though Treasury has walked back those comments.
The public has been widely against the idea of privatizing Social
Security since former President George W. Bush embarked on a campaign to
pitch privatization of the program in 2005, through voluntary personal
retirement accounts. The plan was not well-received by the public.
Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University professor and top economist in
Bush’s White House, told The Associated Press that Social Security needs
to be reduced in size in order to maintain benefits for generations to
come. He supports limiting benefits for wealthy retirees.
“We will have to make a choice," Hubbard said. “If you want Social
Security benefits to look like they are today, we’re going to have to
raise everyone’s taxes a lot. And if that’s what people want, that’s a
menu, and you pay the high price and you move on."
[to top of second column]
|
President Franklin Roosevelt signs the Social Security Bill in
Washington Aug. 14, 1935. (AP Photo, File)
Another option would be to increase minimum benefits and slow down
benefit growth for everyone else, which Hubbard said would right the
ship without requiring big tax increases, if it's done over time.
“It’s really a political choice,” he said, adding “Neither one of
those is pain free."
Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group
for the preservation of Social Security benefits, is more worried
that the administration of benefits could be privatized under Trump,
rather than a move toward privatized accounts. The agency cut more
than 7,000 from its workforce this year as part of the Department of
Government Efficiency's effort to reduce the size of the government.
Martin O’Malley, who was Social Security agency commissioner under
Biden, said he thinks the problems go deeper.
"There is no openness and there is no transparency” at the agency,
he said. “And we hear about field offices teetering on the brink of
collapse.”
A Social Security Administration representative didn't respond to a
request for comment.
Concerns persist
An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll
conducted in April found that an increasing share of older Americans
— particularly Democrats — support the program but aren’t confident
the benefit will be available to them when they retire.
“So much of what we hear is that its running out of money,” said
Becky Boober, 70, from Rockport, Maine, who recently retired after
decades in public service. She relies on Social Security to keep her
finances afloat, is grateful for the program and thinks it should be
expanded.
“In my mind there are several easy fixes that are not a political
stretch,” she said. They include raising the income tax cap on
high-income earners and possibly raising the retirement age, which
is currently 67 for people born after 1960, though she is less
inclined to support that change.
Some call for shrinking the program
Rachel Greszler is a senior research fellow at the Heritage
Foundation, the group behind the Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s
second term. It called for an increase in the retirement age.
Greszler says Social Security no longer serves its intended purpose
of being a social safety net for low-income seniors and is far too
large. She supports pursuing privatization, which includes allowing
retirees to put their Social Security taxes into a personal
investment account.
She also argues for shrinking the program to a point where every
retiree would receive the same Social Security benefit so long as
they worked the same number of years, which she argues would
increase benefits for the bottom one-third of earners. How this
would impact middle-class earners is unclear.
“When talking about needing to reform the system, we need to reform
it so that we don’t have indiscriminate 23% across the board cuts
for everybody,” Greszler said. “We need to reform the system in a
more thoughtful way, so that we are protecting those who are most
vulnerable and reliant on Social Security.”
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved |
