It has been more than 40 years since Congress found common ground on Social Security and implemented a series of necessary reforms. Over that time, the discussion of Social Security has devolved into a shouting match, an exchange of emotionally charged hyperbole in which sound bites have become more important than stone cold facts.

This environment is great for politicians who wish to duck and weave the issue with impunity, less so for the rest of us, because nothing gets done and the problem gets worse. Voters need to think about the role they play in the do-nothing politics of Washington, D.C. 

Social Security is the most predictable crisis in human history. We have talked about benefit cuts in the mid-2030s for years. As a result of all the talk and no action, about half of Americans 80-years-old today will outlive the system’s ability to pay scheduled benefits. In fact, nearly half of these people will live long enough to see Social Security serve as their sole source of income. 

The unplanned reductions of benefits pose a significant problem, and policymakers should be on top of such a gloomy prospect. Unfortunately, the goal of politics at the moment isn’t to solve this enormous issue, one threatening to touch every American family in some way, shape, or form. 

The point of modern politics is to get individuals to believe sufficiently in the merit of prospective policy solutions so that Americans are willing to share their belief on social media with their network of other voters. Every time they share content from a politician with their community, the information comes with the imprimatur of trust. We the people are the Walter Cronkite of the internet age.

Without some boundary of fact on the discussion, there is nothing to herd the cats of Congress to a productive end. So, the debate over the future of Social Security runs in a continuous spin cycle.

To illustrate the problem, there is a dueling narrative that Social Security will go bankrupt versus the rival claim that even in a worst-case scenario, Social Security can’t go broke. These are the yin and yang of the current political stalemate.

In reality, no one seriously thinks that Social Security can go bankrupt. That language is used by people who wish to be heard, and shared by others through social media. To these people, the word “insolvency” isn’t frightening enough, so they use a word designed to trigger the reader’s reaction.

The downside of this debate strategy is that for every hyperbole in a political discussion there is an equal and opposite hyperbole in response. Call it Newton’s Third Law of Politics.  

In this case, the response to the claim that Social Security will go bankrupt is an endless series of “fact checks” assuring readers that Social Security can’t go bankrupt. The financial troubles of the program are magically transformed into a strawman argument to do nothing: you shouldn’t worry about Social Security because it will still pay benefits -- no matter what.

I am never sure what the journalists and would-be policy wonks mean by worst-case scenario. For those who depend upon Social Security, the worst-case scenario is not being able to afford the bare necessities.

While that possibility may not materialize in the near future, it would be substantially worse than getting a check reduced by 20 percent. Actually, the likelihood of beneficiaries receiving 80 percent of their promised benefits in 2033 is basically a coin flip.

Retirees today have been warned about this prospect for roughly 30 years. As time has passed, our elected officials have bickered over what to call insolvency, while doing little to prevent it. 

In Ernest Hemingway’s classic novel, The Sun Also Rises, a character asks, “How did you go bankrupt?” The other responds, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” The same fate could behold Social Security if Congress does not do something soon.

Brenton Smith (think@heartland.org) is a policy advisor with The Heartland Institute.

Image: Social Security Administration