This is probably the best-case scenario for Social Security: policymakers behind closed doors agree to split the difference on tax increases and benefit cuts.
But this also shows how far we've strayed from doing actual public policy--that is, programs that fulfil essential public needs, at costs that are lower than the benefits they provide--versus simply trying to prop up a framework that's approaching a century old.
For instance, raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 seemingly makes sense, given longer lives. But this also means a 13% benefit cut to low-income seniors who aren't actually living longer--in effect, making them pay for a problem they didn't cause.
Or raising the salary on which the 12.4% Social Security tax is levied, from the current $184,500 to to $250-$300k. What do we think those households are currently doing with that money? Saving for college. Saving for retirement. Does it make sense for them to pay that into Social Security, and then get even higher benefits later?
And here's the kicker: the three reforms described would fix less than half of Social Security's funding gap! (As described, I'd guess around 40%.)
I'm not blaming
@JessicaBRiedl; everyone cites this "get them all in a room and split the difference" approach, and I've done it myself.
And maybe this approach would have worked 25 years ago, when Social Security's deficit was less than half the current size.
But now that Social Security's funding gap is so much bigger, policymakers need to think bigger as well.
Or, not so much bigger as deeper. Meaning, don't just take the usual menu of options and multiply by 2, but think hard about why we have Social Security, what we want it to do, what functions we thought government had to do in 1935 that it doesn't need to do in 2035, and so on.
Those questions, rather than a focus singularly on solvency, are actually the key to Social Security solvency.
Social Security reform need not be complicated because there are 3 main reform levers: The payroll tax, eligibility age, & high-earner benefits.
Economists brag we can negotiate a bipartisan fix "in 15 minutes" and I've seen GOP & Democratic lawmakers do so behind the scenes.