The future of Social Security—the government program that touches more Americans' lives than any other—will be determined by the outcome of the November elections.

The program faces a funding shortfall. As ABC News reported in June, the trust fund that pays retiree and survivor benefits is expected to begin running low on money earlier than previously anticipated, raising questions among Americans who rely on those benefits to cover living expenses. Without congressional action, the fund is now projected to start depleting by the fourth quarter of 2032, according to a report issued by Social Security's trustees, the body that manages the trust fund (trustees' report). The shortfall reflects a long-building demographic shift: retirees are drawing benefits faster than payroll tax revenue from current workers replenishes the fund, a pressure that has grown as the population ages.

This does not mean, as some argue for their own political purposes, that Social Security is going "bankrupt." The roughly 68 million Americans who depend on the program do not need to worry about their checks stopping. Instead, the concern is a significant cut to their benefits: once the trust fund is depleted, ongoing payroll tax revenue would cover only a portion of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts.

That reduction, however, can be avoided through political action. Congress and the president can make adjustments that would close the gap and pay out promised benefits. In 1983, Congress and President Ronald Reagan negotiated precisely such a solution—a package that included raising the payroll tax and gradually increasing the full retirement age, demonstrating that bipartisan reform of the program has precedent.

Options on the Table

Congress currently has a number of steps available that would strengthen Social Security's finances for today's beneficiaries and future generations. One of the most discussed is raising the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax—often called "busting the cap."

As the Economic Policy Institute explains, earnings above a cap are not subject to the payroll taxes that fund Social Security. As a result, billionaires pay the same tax as someone earning $176,100 in 2025—the cap is indexed to the average wage and changes each year. "Scrapping the cap" is widely regarded as an effective way to address Social Security's funding gap: nearly three-fourths of the program's projected long-term shortfall would be eliminated if the cap were removed without increasing benefits, according to EPI.

There is even a bipartisan proposal on this front, from Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio (New York Times). The two senators argue that "instead of cutting benefits for the retirees who count on Social Security, we need to take bipartisan action to protect those benefits, reward work, and restore fairness. That starts with a common-sense solution: lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap."

The Commission Alternative

Other bipartisan members of Congress contend that the best way to address Social Security's challenges is a bipartisan commission of 13 members appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties. Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) have introduced the Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act to create such a body. Under the proposal, Congress would receive only an expedited up-or-down vote on the commission's recommendations, with no amendments—bypassing the regular legislative process. Public input, notably, is not part of that process.

Raising the tax on income subject to Social Security appears to be a more direct step toward securing the program's future than creating a commission that operates outside public view. Supporters of the commission approach point out that this mirrors what happened in 1983. That is true, but it overlooks the political realities of that era: the 1983 agreement came about because Democrats and President Reagan came together to negotiate one directly. No comparable presidential leadership exists on this issue today.

Creating a commission may appeal to inside-the-Beltway players such as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, but for the millions of Americans who depend on Social Security, a commission to handle the program's fiscal challenges is simply another way for Congress to avoid doing its job.

Questions for Candidates

There is no doubt that the members of Congress elected this November will chart Social Security's future. Whoever holds the House and Senate after the election will determine whether reform happens before the 2032 deadline or is left until the trust fund is nearly exhausted, when the options become more constrained. Voters who care about their own retirement security and that of future generations have a responsibility to ask tough questions about the program. Two such questions:

• If a special commission is created to deal with Social Security, why do we need members of Congress?
• Should Elon Musk pay the same amount of Social Security tax as an IT manager earning $184,600—one hundred dollars over the cap?

During this election, ask candidates where they stand on Social Security's future and what solutions they support to ensure benefits are not cut because of inaction or political fear—and tell them what Social Security means to you and your family. Social Security is the only guaranteed, inflation-protected retirement income source for millions of Americans, and that guarantee must be honored by elected political leaders.