And the really sad thing is that the vast majority of comments believe this nonsense making no effort to seek the truth.
In 2025, the Social Security (OASDI) trust funds earned approximately $64 billion in interest income – even after the bonds held by the trust started to be redeemed in 2021.
Social Security has always invested its excess revenue in U.S. government debt, since 1960 non-marketable special treasury bonds that don’t fluctuate in value.
Since 2010, Social Security has covered the gap between tax receipts and benefits by drawing down its trust‑fund assets (interest on the accumulated Treasury bonds), so the trust‑fund balance has been shrinking rather than growing.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Yes, the Social Security Trust Fund has been a very unique form of federal government “piggy bank”.
That is what government bonds are … borrowing.
And, since 2010, the federal government has been borrowing from other sources when Social Security redeems the bonds – because payroll deduction revenues (FICA taxes, er “contributions”) have lagged benefit payments since then.
The impact?
Excerpts from CATO:
Social Security (funding) is typically framed as a future problem—something tied to trust fund exhaustion several years from now.
But from a unified budget perspective, it’s already a major driver of federal debt today.
Since 2010, Social Security has been running cash-flow deficits, meaning it pays out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. To make up the difference, the Treasury borrows from the public. Between 2010 and the projected trust fund exhaustion around 2032, borrowing will total about $4 trillion.
Looking longer term, the imbalance is even more striking: Social Security’s 75-year unfunded obligation is about $28 trillion. So, this isn’t just a future cliff—it’s an ongoing and growing fiscal challenge.
Social Security and Medicare unfunded obligations exceed the government’s entire long-term funding gap.
Not Just Demographics—Program Design Drives the Problem: This issue is often presented as a demographic story. You’ll hear that Americans are living longer, having fewer children, and that rising costs are therefore inevitable. But that’s only part of the story—and it’s not the most important part.
(Instead) program design choices are central to why costs are rising and why the system is unsustainable. Yes, demographics matter. The worker-to-beneficiary ratio has fallen significantly over time. But three policy choices are doing much of the work:
First, Social Security pays higher benefits to higher earners because it is designed to replace earnings, not just prevent poverty. That means a large share of benefits flows to middle- and upper-income retirees (though substantially less value is provided to 35+ year individuals paying taxes at the Social Security Wage Base cap, when compared to the benefits they receive … due to the bend points in the Social Security benefits formula).
Second, initial benefits are wage-indexed, so as wages grow, each new cohort of retirees receives higher inflation-adjusted benefits than the one before (again, in terms of “value for money”, the typical measuring yardstick for insurance, substantially less value for higher paid workers who contribute for more than 35 years).
Value for money (VfM) is the optimal balance of total cost, quality, and sustainability to meet a requirement. VfM represents the best available outcome for the resources spent, considering costs over a lifetime – along with fitness for purpose and performance.
Key Components of Value for Money? The 3 E’s (or 4/5 E’s): Traditionally, this involves maximizing the Economy (low-cost inputs), Efficiency (high productivity of resources), and Effectiveness (achieving desired outcomes). Modern approaches often include Equity (fair distribution) and Environment (sustainability)..
Clearly, for higher paid workers who contribute for more than 35 years, the retirement income is no where near achieving a VfM outcome – as their contributions pay much more for the same disability and death and retirement benefits that would have been provided had they worked only 35 years – coupled with the highly progressive benefit formula.
Third, we’ve effectively expanded the number of years people receive benefits, as life expectancy has increased, without making equivalent adjustments to eligibility ages.
Put together, this means benefits grow faster, last longer, and extend well beyond basic poverty protection.
So, the key takeaway is that rising Social Security spending isn’t just an inevitable consequence of aging—it is largely the result of policy choices. And that means it can be changed.
Policymakers sometimes point to stronger economic growth to address Social Security’s financing challenges without making structural reforms. To test this, we used the Cato Institute’s Social Security model* to simulate two alternative real wage growth scenarios: 0.5 and 1.0 percentage points above the Social Security Trustees’ 1.13% baseline. While higher real wage growth does meaningfully improve the program’s finances, it falls well short of closing projected cash-flow deficits. Even under the most optimistic real wage growth scenario, with wage growth nearly doubling compared to current projections, the program would add to publicly held debt each year over the next 75 years.
To conclude, Social Security’s challenges are not just about demographics or the distant future. The program is already adding to federal debt, and policy choices are a primary driver of the imbalance. Without structural reforms, Social Security will remain a significant contributor to the deteriorating US fiscal outlook. Delaying action will only increase the cost of reform and limit policymakers’ ability to protect the most vulnerable retirees.
LikeLike
It is not a driver of federal debt unless you assume that if Treasury did not issue bonds to SS, it would not issue them to other buyers to fund government. That is not the case at all. SS has been funded the same from the start, why now is it deemed contributing to national debt?
Demographics is the story. The Congressional Research Service explicitly identifies demographic shifts—especially low fertility and increased longevity—as the primary cause of Social Security’s projected funding gap.
As far as design issues, that isn’t relevant because any design needs to be funded adequately on an ongoing the basis, so the failure to fund and adjust funding over the years IS the issue.
LikeLike
“It is not a driver of federal debt unless you assume that if Treasury did not issue bonds to SS, it would not issue them to other buyers to fund government.”
Not so. If Social Security lending money to the federal government wasn’t an enabler for Congress to increase deficit spending, we wouldn’t have the $4 Trillion budget hole.
“SS has been funded the same from the start, why now is it deemed contributing to national debt?”
No, initially, it was not structured to be a pay as you go system. Initially, it was not designed as a social insurance system. Congress added and expanded benefits within the first five years of the program … changing from a savings based formula to a social insurance formula to buy votes.
For example, the very first Social Security beneficiary, Ida Mae Fuller, paid in only for three years, a total of $24.75. She was NOT eligible for a monthly benefit under the initial program rules. She should have received a lump sum – mostly a refund of the taxes she had paid.
If she had qualified for a monthly benefit under the initial program rules by working past 1939, she would have qualified for the minimum of $10 a month starting in 1942. Fuller’s claim was the first one, paid January 31, 1940, in the amount of $22.54.
Why? Because even back then, Congress was buying votes and and had heavily modified the initial program design with significant amendments in 1939 – shifting from a savings-based formula to a social insurance model.
“The failure to fund and adjust funding over the years IS the issue.”
Agree, as is the failure of Congress to control spending. At the same time, because Congress has been buying votes with changes to Social Security and Medicare, especially during the Carter Administration in the 1970’s, the Bush II administration in the 2000’s, and most recent by President Biden in 2021 and 2024, simply, had there been increased funding, it would likely have enabled Congress to spend even more and buy more votes.
Spendthrift pigs at the trough – Republican AND Democrat.
As Twain once said: “… there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
LikeLike