We Can Afford Social Security—And the Washington Post Is Wrong

Reclaiming the Narrative on Social Security

When I first read the Washington Post's editorial board's latest piece asserting that Social Security is a fiscal nightmare, I felt a familiar frustration. Not because it was inaccurate—but because it was dangerously oversimplified. The editorial claimed the program is “unsustainable” and that we cannot afford to keep it as it stands. It's a narrative so deeply embedded in the mainstream discourse that even the most well-meaning policymakers begin to believe it.

"We can't afford Social Security," they write, as if the system were a failing business rather than a social contract forged by generations of Americans.

But here's what the Post and others like them refuse to acknowledge: Social Security isn't broken. It is underfunded in terms of projections—but that is not the same as insolvent. We can afford it. We must afford it.

The Real Problem Isn't Funding, It's Politics

The real issue lies not in numbers but in political will. Social Security is a program that has consistently provided a lifeline to millions of Americans, and yet we treat it like a financial liability. The editorial board's framing ignores how the system functions, how it's sustained by payroll taxes, and how its solvency isn't dependent on some abstract economic model—it's dependent on public commitment.

Yes, the trust fund is projected to be depleted around 2034—according to the latest projections from the Social Security Trustees. But that doesn't mean the program stops working. It means we need to adjust the system, not dismantle it. The system can continue paying full benefits if we make smart changes: raising the payroll tax cap, adjusting the benefit formula, or increasing the retirement age slightly. These aren't radical solutions—they're pragmatic ones.

Why This Matters

We must not allow fear-mongering to shape policy. If the Post and other media outlets want to push for change, they should focus on how we can preserve and improve Social Security, not on undermining its legitimacy. As someone who's watched the erosion of public trust in our institutions over decades, I see this as a critical moment. The way we treat Social Security reflects our values—not just about economics but about what we consider worthy of collective investment.

When we say that Social Security is "unsustainable," we're not just talking about numbers—we're talking about a moral reckoning. If we allow ourselves to be convinced that the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor are not worth protecting, then we've already lost something essential.

The Myth of 'Unaffordability'

There's a powerful myth embedded in American economic discourse: that we simply can't afford programs that benefit ordinary people. This is what's known as the "affordability argument," and it has been weaponized to justify austerity and cuts to essential services. It's a myth rooted in ideological preference, not hard data.

We can afford Social Security because we've done it before. The system was created in 1935 during the Great Depression, a time of national crisis, and it has thrived ever since. We paid for it then, and we can pay for it now. It is not an act of charity or compassion—it's a matter of economic necessity and democratic responsibility.

What Would a Real Reform Look Like?

Reform doesn't have to be radical. It has to be honest, forward-looking, and rooted in the principle that Social Security is a social insurance program—not a retirement savings account. We must begin by recognizing that we are not simply managing a fund; we are preserving a promise made to millions of Americans.

• Expand payroll tax coverage to include high earners
• Adjust benefit formulas to ensure fairness across income levels
• Strengthen long-term solvency through modest, sustainable increases
• Reframe the debate from "cost" to "value"

These changes would ensure that Social Security remains viable for decades to come while strengthening the social fabric. The argument against reform is not one of fiscal realism—it's one of political will. We have the means, and we must make the choice.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

I've seen how quickly public sentiment shifts when narratives are shaped by fear rather than fact. The Washington Post's editorial board, like so many others, has chosen a narrative that is emotionally appealing but economically and morally flawed. If we want a more equitable future, we must reject the idea that Social Security is a burden to be eliminated. It is a vital pillar of American society—one that we must protect and strengthen.

The stakes are high, and the time for half-measures is over. We need a national conversation—not one built on fear, but one rooted in shared values and responsibility.