The 2024 election is upon us, and voters are still waiting for any candidate of either political party to emerge with a plan to save Social Security. Over the past year, debates have come and gone without moderators even broaching the subject of Social Security’s pending insolvency. Town halls have provided answers to practically everything, except the taboo topic of how to save Social Security.

In response to my concerns about the vapid state of the Social Security debate, this is what I typically hear from those on the far left: “The problem is the Republicans!” Most on the extreme left actually believe that Social Security will be fine if only the wealthy would pay their fair share.

Unfortunately, that is not a plan to save Social Security; it is merely a talking point.

On the other hand, former President Trump has pledged to not touch Social Security, which will not solve the problem either.

Democrats might respond that they have proposals to salvage Social Security, and they do. The problem is that none of these proposals have managed to get out of a committee, even when Congress is controlled by party elders and the committee is chaired by the author of the proposed legislation. The concern of Democrats on Social Security is an illusion, a smoke-and-mirrors display that would make Penn and Teller applaud in awe. 

Here are the parts that are missing: What is the meaning of rich? What is the definition of fair? And exactly how much of the taxes you plan to raise will be spent on increasing the longevity of Social Security? Of course, those questions lead into who will reap the benefits and who will pay more into the system. These are the crucial missing details.

At this point, the Democrats’ plan for Social Security is to raise taxes and spend even more money. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

The media have given Vice President Harris a break on the subject, citing her past support of the Social Security Expansion Act of 2019. That legislation was designed to deal with the financial shortfall of Social Security at the end of 2017, which was roughly $10 trillion less than what we face today.

Since that time, Harris has walked back that commitment to taxing higher-income workers in support of President Biden. While she has scaled back on who should pay more, the rest of the Democrat Party has moved in the other direction, doubling down on what the fair share from the rich might be. 

Believe it or not, Democrats seem to believe that the fair share of the rich has doubled since 2020. Why is the meaning of fair changing so radically? 

So, who are the rich? Back in 2019, Joe Biden argued that those earning $400,000 in income were wealthy and should pay more. In 2024, the definition hasn’t changed despite inflation levels the country hasn’t seen in decades. Combined, the meaning of the word rich fell by nearly 20 percent in real terms despite Democrat claims that we have a strong economy.

Why is the meaning of wealthy falling in a strong economy? It is a reasonable question that no one is asking.

Folks, the clock continues to tick. On August 14, Harris released a statement, “For 89 years, Social Security has made the difference between poverty or peace of mind for millions of seniors, people with disabilities, and other beneficiaries. As President, I will protect and expand these bedrock programs.” In the five minutes that it took her to post the empty rhetoric of politics, the program generated another $5 million in empty promises. 

The problem with Social Security is the ticking of the clock, and the willingness of voters to wait for politicians to stop twiddling their thumbs. If your benefits are reduced in the near future, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Brenton Smith is a policy advisor with The Heartland Institute.