When Social Security was created in 1935, it seemed like a good idea. But even at the time, there were politicians from both parties who thought it was a government scheme. Some even thought the power to tax income was unconstitutional.

Now, nearly a century later, Social Security is on the brink of insolvency … again.

“According to data from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the ratio of U.S. workers to Social Security beneficiaries has steadily declined over the last several decades,” Newsweek reports. “Without legislative intervention, the financial consequences of these combined pressures are expected to hit a critical tipping point in the near future. The trustees’ report projects that the Social Security trust fund will face insolvency by 2032.”

There are myriad problems that need to be addressed, but that’s easier said than done. According to the Social Security Administration, in 1940, there were 160 workers paying into the system for each retiree. Today, that number has fallen dramatically to only two workers per retiree.

We’ve heard about the demise of Social Security for years, and by now, members of Congress should have come up with a better plan. Of course, it was a bad idea from the start. Its very structure relies on a strong and steady foundation of young workers and depends on taxation rather than drawing on actual contributions. In other words, there’s no such thing as a Social Security trust fund where the money is held securely in Uncle Sam’s bank account.

In recent decades, life expectancy has increased, and birth rates have plummeted, making it hard to sustain a system destined to fail.

The only solution Democrats can come up with is the same one they always float — raise taxes on the wealthy. To make the idea even more comical, America’s richest Marxist is the one making the case on podcasts and television news programs. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders cannot live with the idea that people like trillionaire Elon Musk pay no more into the program than his factory workers.

However, as Ramesh Pannuru explains in an op-ed for The Washington Post, “Social Security has always included a cap because of its basic design. The program’s architects and their political descendants wanted to maintain some relationship between what people contribute to it and what they get. Historically, Democrats have believed so strongly in making the program seem like an ‘earned benefit’ that they have opposed reining in benefit growth even for the richest Americans.”

“The theory was that the public would support the program less if it were openly redistributive,” adds Pannuru. “The tax cap is there to keep benefits related to contributions. Musk won’t pay any more than someone making $184,500, but he also won’t get a bigger check than that person.”

Sanders is like the character Bruce Dickinson played by Christopher Walken in the classic “More Cowbell” Saturday Night Live sketch. Dickinson can’t get enough cowbell, and Sanders can’t get enough taxes. Next thing you know, Democrats will be demanding gold-plated diapers.

Recently, Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio joined forces to call on the wealthy to help save the Social Security program.

One smart approach to resolving this issue is, as George W. Bush proposed in 2005, to privatize Social Security. Those who’ve already paid into the system will be guaranteed to see their money during retirement, but younger workers should have the option to invest in private accounts where the money will grow faster and be more secure.

Just last month, Texas Senator Ted Cruz suggested that the newly created Trump accounts could be a backdoor approach to eventually replace Social Security. As Fox Business relays, “Cruz said that Trump accounts will end up accumulating enough money in the years ahead that parents will want to have an account of their own and may be willing to support a change that would have their payroll taxes go into one in the next five to 10 years.”

It didn’t take long for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to walk back the idea after backlash over the very notion of changing the system. It’s no wonder the privatization effort isn’t picking up much support. Politically, Republicans don’t have the courage to push for it, and they don’t have any other serious plans other than criticizing (as they should) Democrats for trying to solve every problem under the sun by raising taxes.

“Because most retirees are wealthier than the taxpayers financing their benefits, Social Security today largely redistributes income upward, not downward,” says the Manhattan Institute’s Jessica Riedl. “Of course, many seniors still struggle (which can be more affordably addressed by hiking the minimum benefit), yet pledging that today’s workers will pay any tax necessary to ensure that even multimillionaire seniors can continue to receive benefits far exceeding their lifetime Social Security contributions is neither progressive nor sensible.”

If we’re going to save the program, painful decisions need to be made, including examining structural issues that can’t be resolved by raising taxes on Elon Musk. We need to consider how to address the worker-to-retiree ratio, rising life expectancy, and benefit increases. We also need to change the public’s perception that Social Security is a savings account. To truly “save” the system, we may have to replace it entirely.

As Social Security’s doomsday date grows closer, we’ll hear politicians from both sides of the aisle talk about how important it is to save it. But there aren’t any real, long-term solutions that’ll do anything other than keep it on life support for a few years and kick the can down the road for the next generation.