From the end of World War II up to about the time President John F. Kennedy approved sending additional Special Forces troops to Vietnam, we created what came to be called the baby boom generation. Rebranding is in order here: I suggest calling the boomers the Meals on Wheels generation.
Great that on average everybody is living a lot longer. The Meals on Wheels generation is the first big demographic bump on the longevity chart. Today, about 30% of men and 40% of women who are over 65 will make it into their 90s. With respect to Social Security, this rosy picture of centenarian potential turns dark at a very specific moment on the actuarial calendar: the day 67 arrives. In 1983, the retirement age for collecting full Social Security bumped up to 67 from 65 for all those born after 1960. (You can still start receiving Social Security checks at age 62, but at a steep discount in the monthly amount — close to 30%.)
This was one of the best moments during Ronald Reagan’s presidency (1980-88). It should happen again. At the very least, two more years to 69; better yet, 71 or 73; and best of all, 75. This will allow the so-called Social Security lockbox to remain solvent right up to the first day of the end times.
The Social Security Act of 1935, inaugurated in the midst of the Great Depression, set the retirement age at 65 when life expectancy was 61 for men and 65 for women. Terrific formula. If all people who retired after 1936 had croaked before 61 or 65, respectively, the federal government would have taken in millions of dollars and paid out zero. Life expectancy in the United States today is 76.5 for men and 81.4 for women. The Meals on Wheels generation is 71 million strong, while at the same time fewer people in their prime working years — early 20s to late 50s — are paying into the system. Between the years 2010 and 2030 the number of senior citizens will jump from 12% to 18% of the population.
This spells big trouble. Arrival date, likely sometime in ’33 or ’34. At that point, the Social Security trust fund will run dry unless legislative changes are made in the financial structure of the program, according to the 2026 annual report from the Social Security trustees. If nothing is done to fix the problem, like raising the retirement age, preventing insolvency would require somewhere between a 20% to 23% cut in current monthly benefits across the board. The overwhelming response to such a drastic action will be “No Way.” Not just from the Meals on Wheels geezers, but across the generational divide. There will be howls of protest from Generation X (1965-81), millennials (1982-96), Generation Z (1997-2012), and Generation Alpha (2013-27).
Already off and running, the current leader of the “No Way” movement is a high-level government official and fellow contributor for the Washington Examiner. In his Sept. 3 op-ed, Missouri State Treasurer Vivek Malek wrote: “With every single paycheck, we’re earning our Social Security. It’s ours. … Ideas such as raising the retirement age, privatizing Social Security, and reducing the Cost-of-Living Adjustment will only exacerbate the financial burden felt by so many. … Social Security cuts are far from a necessary sacrifice. They are an unnecessary burden on innocent people and a betrayal of the American promise.”
The Missouri state treasurer makes a good case until one begins following the money. Yes, “It’s ours,” but almost all of those over 65 are going to get back a lot more money than they paid in due to the way the program is structured. The amount of your retirement check is based on your work history. The average of your monthly income over your 35 highest earnings years determines how much your monthly check will be. You don’t need a financial adviser to calculate how to max out the total number of electronic deposits going into your bank account every year before the final ping. All you have to do is live a very long life.
It is difficult to determine at what age your own “trust fund” runs out and all subsequent checks are really not your money, but the government gravy train. A good rule of thumb: late 70s. For those living into their 80s and 90s, this can amount to several hundred thousand dollars, even top a million. The “No Way” campaign will point out you should get more back than you paid in because you could have earned interest on that money if it had been stashed away in the bank or on an investment plan.
Could have. If.
AARP DOESN’T WANT SOCIAL SECURITY FIXED — IT WANTS YOU SCARED AND DONATING
In other words, fat chance. That money would have been spent, perhaps wisely, perhaps absolutely necessary (feed the kid), but more likely spent for your own pleasure, or spent recklessly (gambling, drugs, booze, Starbucks, takeout sushi). That’s why we have Social Security. Red country and blue country are pretty much in agreement here. Deep down we all admit when it comes to the almighty dollar, we love to spend it, not save it.
About seven or eight years remain before the red ink starts running. Raising the retirement age is the best and fairest way to solve this problem.
Bob Armstrong is the author of a memoir, No Exit from Vietnam, and a contributing writer to Thursday Review, an online magazine.