For most of our lives, we’ve heard that Social Security needs to be modernized so it can be sustained — otherwise, it’s soon on the verge of mandatory benefit reductions. Baby Boomers who retire take from the kitty, but it’s not being refilled quickly enough by the declining number of workers who are still toiling for each retiree, particularly as life expectancy has increased over the last 90 years. When Social Security was enacted in the 1930s, the average male would not have made it to retirement age; therefore, it was mainly intended to support their widows.

We probably came closest to the needed reform back in 2005, when newly reelected President George W. Bush attempted to follow through on one of his campaign planks, only to encounter fierce and demagogic resistance from the Democrats. So the “what-if” game we’re playing today isn’t anything new: a year ago our Nate Jackson told us:

Speaking of 2005, that was the year Democrats denied taxpayers the right to invest their own money in the stock market rather than have it confiscated through payroll taxes and distributed to current retirees. How did sinking George W. Bush’s plan work out for seniors? “The average worker would have three times more retirement income if they were able to keep and invest their Social Security taxes,” reports, The Heritage Foundation. “Even the lowest-income workers would have 40% more retirement income.”

Have seniors in your life? They should see that.

Bush described his proposal in his 2005 State of the Union address as follows:

Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today’s retirees. If you’re a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.

Here’s why the personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow over time at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver, and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children and/or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the Government can never take it away.

Andrew G. Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute recently calculated how things would have gone had Bush received the bipartisan support he needed to reform the program 20 years ago. Biggs did the math, and he found, “Workers with very low, low, and middle earnings would have received total Social Security benefits 3–8 percent above those scheduled in current law.”

As Ramesh Ponnuru observes at National Review, “People with low lifetime earnings who had chosen to participate in personal saving accounts would have higher payouts in retirement than the program currently schedules. To a lesser extent, people with medium earnings would also be ahead. High earners would take a tiny cut because Bush’s reforms would have stopped the growth of the program’s traditional benefits.” Those earners, however, generally have the money to invest in their own retirement, so a small cut wouldn’t have hurt them as badly.

This isn’t just a hypothetical. Fellow National Review writer Dominic Pino details how other nations are handling their situations — hint: they’re not in the same leaky boat we’re in. But without the stones to make any sort of change, we’re back to the old “third rail” mentality when it comes to Social Security: “touch it and you’re dead.”

One thing that can be touched, however, is repealing the gift that Joe Biden gave government employees on his way out the door. “Instead of addressing the broader issue of Social Security’s solvency,” wrote our Brian Mark Weber in January, “President Joe Biden made matters worse by signing the Social Security Fairness Act (in the final days of his term.) This act, in part, will repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision, which was designed to fix a quirk in the formula allowing some public-sector workers to receive benefits exceeding their earned portion.”

As we mentioned earlier, this is an issue that has been kicked down the road for decades. The same Heritage Foundation expert Jackson cited a year ago had predicted a decade earlier that the money would run out last year. Whether it was dumb luck or changing demographics, fortunately, the trend line bent enough to give us another decade to do something about the issue.

After all, if we do nothing, someday Elon Musk will be proven correct and Social Security will have become a Ponzi scheme. Even though President Donald Trump has said he would “protect” Social Security, that doesn’t mean we can’t have a choice in the matter, like President Bush proposed as an alternative for those who are young enough to take advantage of that long-term investment strategy, right? In 20 years, the Dow Jones has more than quadrupled, the NASDAQ composite has increased almost tenfold, and the S&P 500 is up over fivefold — all while overall inflation is up around 65%.

Obviously, past performance is no indicator of future results, but if they claim our Social Security money is in a lockbox for our eventual use, shouldn’t we be able to invest at least some of it as if it were really ours? For all his faults, perhaps George W. Bush was onto something back then. It’s a crying shame that Democrats with Bush Derangement Syndrome squandered the opportunity.

Only 2 Days Left! As a 100% grassroots-supported organization, our 2025 Independence Day Campaign is critical to keeping The Patriot Post’s daily operations funded. Friday is the deadline and we need all hands on deck to meet this goal! Please celebrate this week’s Independence Day, in part, by making your gift and help us extend Liberty to the next generation of American Patriots. Thank you for your investment in our mission! —The Patriot Post Editorial Team