social security

There’s some good news related to the Trump administration’s concerted attack on the Social Security Administration: Thus far, it doesn’t appear to have significantly affected the delivery of benefits. Checks are still going out and payments into beneficiaries’ bank accounts are still arriving on time.

Beyond that, however, the system is going to hell.

While Social Security appears to still be working well — superficially — under the surface the agency is suffering through a period of unprecedented turmoil. That’s the gist of a new report by Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Connor, Social Security experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Under the Trump administration, Romig and O’Connor observe, the Social Security Administration’s regional office staff “have been mostly eliminated, robbing front-line staff of key supports.” Headquarters staffing has been cut by nearly half, including technology experts. Field office and call center staff also have been eviscerated.

Few departments within SSA have been spared — not even the office tasked with helping members of Congress assist their constituents with Social Security issues and helping to develop legislation.

The so-called Office of Legislation and Congressional Affairs was cut to three employees from 50. Constituent caseworkers in congressional offices have been receiving “bounce-back emails and no-replies from legislative liaison offices that were previously responsive to congressional inquiries,” according to a letter sent by 50 Democratic House members to the SSA in July.

Even Republicans, who generally have been willing to go along with the administration’s rampage through agency budgets, raised the alarm about customer service failures at SSA, noting in a legislative markup that “there are significant service delivery challenges at SSA that are impacting critical services that millions of Americans count on. “

The agency’s staffing problems may be simmering under the surface, but it translates into chronically poor customer service. “Inadequate staffing at SSA directly harms the retirees, people with disabilities, and bereaved families the agency is responsible for serving,” Romig and O’Connor report.

“Because there aren’t enough workers in SSA’s local offices, applicants wait over a month on average for an appointment. Because there aren’t enough people answering the agency’s 800 number, most callers wait over two hours on average for an answer, as of early August,” they write. “Because there aren’t enough disability examiners, applicants wait eight months for an initial decision on their eligibility for disability benefits, with an additional seven-month wait for those who appeal.”

Meanwhile, more information has emerged about the incursion of untrained representatives of Elon Musk’s budget-cutting DOGE service into Social Security’s most carefully guarded databases. The outcome has been the exposure of workers’ and beneficiaries’ private personal information to outsiders, all without adequate oversight.

I’ve been following Trump’s campaign against Social Security from the outset. Although Trump has promised repeatedly that “we’re not touching Social Security,” actions speak louder than words, and his unconcern about the program, if not his outright hostility, have been screaming from the rooftops.

Among the weapons Trump could use to undermine the program, as I wrote, was “starving the program of administrative resources — think money and staff.” As it happened, Sure enough, within a month of Trump’s inauguration, the program announced plans to reduce its employee base to 50,000 from 57,000.

Its press release about the reduction referred to the program’s “bloated workforce.” That sounded like a cheap gag, since the truth is that the agency has been hopelessly understaffed for years.

The DOGE team showed its ignorance and incompetence at every turn, issuing inaccurate assertions about fraud at Social Security and then instituting operational changes that had no effect on fraud but inconvenienced thousands of beneficiaries. In March, for example, a DOGE employee went on Fox News with the claim that 40% of phone calls to the agency to change direct deposit information came from fraudsters. As a result, the agency mandated that such changes had to be made in person or online.

The true statistic misinterpreted by DOGE was that 40% of direct deposit fraud is connected with phone calls, not that 40% of all calls to change bank information is fraudulent. After the dime dropped at DOGE, the restriction was rescinded.

Since then, the Trump administration has acted from time to time as if the Social Security Administration is an arm of the White House. In March, it shut down SSA services in Maine because the state’s governor had challenged Trump face-to-face over his policies. (The decision was promptly reversed, but then-Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek admitted that he had taken the step in retaliation for the governor’s conflict with Trump.)

In April, Trump tried to dragoon Social Security into his anti-immigrant campaign by declaring some 6,300 purportedly illegal immigrants to be “dead” in program records, even though they were very much alive. The administration said its goal was to deny the workers benefits, though under the law noncitizens without legal residency in the U.S. can’t collect benefits, even if they’ve made payroll contributions to the program.

The biggest threat to the public’s confidence in Social Security may be the administration’s raid on its secure databases, starting with a rampage by DOGE documented by then-Chief of Staff Tiffany Flick.

More has come out since Flick filed her account in court. Last month, Chuck Borges, formerly the program’s chief data officer, filed a whistleblower affidavit outlining his concerns about “serious data security lapses, evidently orchestrated by DOGE officials, currently employed as SSA employees, that risk the security of over 300 million Americans’ Social Security data.”

DOGE, Borges reported, created “a live copy of the country’s Social Security information” and placed it in a digital platform that could be easily accessed by those without authorization.

At issue is the so-called NUMIDENT database, which includes the “name, … place and date of birth, citizenship, race and ethnicity, parents’ names and social security numbers, phone number, address, and other personal information” of every applicant for a Social Security card.

“Should bad actors gain access to this cloud environment,” Borges asserts, “Americans may be susceptible to widespread identity theft, may lose vital healthcare and food benefits, and the government may be responsible for re-issuing every American a new Social Security Number at great cost.”

Trump has instituted the largest staffing cut in Social Security history, while the caseload per employee is higher than ever

(Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

A federal court shut that access and activity down. But in June it was overruled by the Supreme Court, which unaccountably granted DOGE members access to the agency database “in order for those members to do their work.”

SSA didn’t respond to my request for comment on these issues or on increasing concern about the program’s functioning under its recently installed commissioner, Frank Bisignano.

Bisignano has been issuing self-congratulatory press releases boasting about improvements to customer service metrics at the agency — for example, phone answer times cut to an average of six minutes, down from 30 minutes last year. A press release issued in July attributed the improvement to “focused technology enhancements and process engineering.”

In fact, according to Romig and O’Connor, it’s more likely that the improvement happened because the agency reassigned 1,000 staffers from field offices, where they served clients face-to-face, to answering phones. The reassignments, Romig and O’Connor observed, “likely is coming at a steep cost to the rest of the agency’s work.”

At least 2,000 field office employees already had been pushed out by DOGE, so removing an additional 1,000 workers from the field only “deepens problems for people seeking in-person service — which were already considerable.”

Indeed, back in April the agency itself acknowledged that more than three dozen field offices around the country were in dire condition, suffering staff losses of 25% to 33% from DOGE’s “voluntary” resignation program that resulted in the loss of more than 7,000 workers overall, or 13% of the payroll.

Earlier this year, DOGE listed 47 Social Security offices due for closing, though it is not clear how many have actually been shuttered this year or what the schedule is for closing the rest.

Over the last decade or so, Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been wringing their hands over what they say is Social Security’s impending fiscal crisis, caused by the exhaustion of its trust fund reserve sometime in the next decade. But that’s still the subject of conjecture.

What’s more certain is that the congressional cheeseparing and the DOGE raid that have produced the largest staffing cut in the program’s history — at a time when its caseload is at record size and is destined to grow even further — loom as a greater threat to most workers and beneficiaries.

“To raise customer service to acceptable levels, Congress must not only provide SSA with sufficient funding but also forcefully push back against the Administration’s current mismanagement of its existing resources,” Romig and O’Connor maintain.

They’re right. Isn’t it time for Capitol Hill to take firm, bipartisan action to protect America’s most important government service from its enemies?

John McGing couldn’t reach a human. That might be business-as-usual in this economy, but it wasn’t business; he had called the Social Security Administration, where the questions often aren’t generic and the callers tend to be older, disabled, or otherwise vulnerable Americans.

McGing, calling on behalf of his son, had an in-the-weeds question: how to prevent overpayments that the federal government might later claw back. His call was intercepted by an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot.

No matter what he said, the bot parroted canned answers to generic questions, not McGing’s obscure query. “If you do a key press, it didn’t do anything,” he said. Eventually, the bot “glitched or whatever” and got him to an agent.

It was a small but revealing incident. Unbeknownst to McGing, a former Social Security employee in Maryland, he had encountered a technological tool recently introduced by the agency. Former officials and longtime observers of the agency say the Trump administration rolled out a product that was tested but deemed not yet ready during the Biden administration.

“With the new administration, they’re just kind of like, let’s go fast and fix it later, which I don’t agree with, because you are going to generate a lot of confusion,” said Marcela Escobar-Alava, who served as Social Security’s chief information officer under President Joe Biden.

Some 74 million people receive Social Security benefits; 11 million of those receive disability payments. In a survey conducted last fall, more than a third of recipients said they wouldn’t be able to afford such necessities as food, clothing, or housing without it. And yet the agency has been shedding the employees who serve them: Some 6,200 have left the agency, its commissioner told lawmakers in June, and critics in Congress and elsewhere say that’s led to worse customer service, despite the agency’s efforts to build up new technology.

Take the new phone bot. At least some beneficiaries don’t like it: Social Security’s Facebook page is, from time to time, pockmarked with negative reviews of the uncooperative bot, as the agency said in July that nearly 41% of calls are handled by the bot.

Lawmakers and former agency employees worry it foreshadows a less human Social Security, in which rushed-out AI takes the place of pushed-out, experienced employees.

Anxieties across party lines

Concern over the direction of the agency is bipartisan. In May, a group of House Republicans wrote to the Social Security Administration expressing support for government efficiency, but cautioning that their constituents had criticized the agency for “inadequate customer service” and suggesting that some measures may be “overly burdensome.”

The agency’s commissioner, Frank Bisignano, a former Wall Street executive, is a tech enthusiast. He has a laundry list of initiatives on which to spend the $600 million in new tech money in the Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget request. He’s gotten testy when asked whether his plans mean he’ll be replacing human staff with AI.

“You referred to SSA being on an all-time staffing low; it’s also at an all-time technological high,” he snapped at one Democrat in a House hearing in late June.

But former Social Security officials are more ambivalent. In interviews with KFF Health News, people who left the agency — some speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the Trump administration and its supporters — said they believe the new administration simply rushed out technologies developed, but deemed not yet ready, by the Biden administration. They also said the agency’s firing of thousands of employees resulted in the loss of experienced technologists who are best equipped to roll out these initiatives and address their weaknesses.

“Social Security’s new AI phone tool is making it even harder for people to get help over the phone — and near impossible if someone needs an American Sign Language interpreter or translator,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told KFF Health News. “We should be making it as easy as possible for people to get the Social Security they’ve earned.”

Spokespeople for the agency did not reply to questions from KFF Health News.

Using AI to automate customer service is one of the buzziest businesses in Silicon Valley. In theory, the new breed of artificial intelligence technologies can smoothly respond, in a human-like voice, to just about any question. That’s not how the Social Security Administration’s bot seems to work, with users reporting canned, unrelated responses.

The Trump administration has eliminated some online statistics that obscure its true performance, said Kathleen Romig, a former agency official who is now director of Social Security and disability policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The old website showed that most callers waited two hours for an answer. Now, the website doesn’t show waiting times, either for phone inquiries (once callback wait time is accounted for) or appointment scheduling.

While statistics are being posted that show beneficiaries receive help — that is, using the AI bot or the agency’s website to accomplish tasks like getting a replacement card — Romig said she thinks it’s a “very distorted view” overall. Reviews of the AI bot are often poor, she said.

Agency leaders and employees who first worked on the AI product during the Biden administration anticipated those types of difficulties. Escobar-Alava said they had worked on such a bot, but wanted to clean up the policy and regulation data it was relying on first.

“We wanted to ensure the automation produced consistent and accurate answers, which was going to take more time,” she said. Instead, it seems the Trump administration opted to introduce the bot first and troubleshoot later, Escobar-Alava said.

Romig said one former executive told her that the agency had used canned FAQs without modifications or nuances to accommodate individual situations and was monitoring the technology to see how well it performed. Escobar-Alava said she has heard similarly.

Could automation help?

To Bisignano, automation and web services are the most efficient ways to assist the program’s beneficiaries. In a letter to Warren, he said that agency leaders “are transforming SSA into a digital-first agency that meets customers where they want to be met,” making changes that allow the vast majority of calls to be handled either in an automated fashion or by having a human return the customer’s call.

Using these methods also relieves burdens on otherwise beleaguered field offices, Bisignano wrote.

Altering the phone experience is not the end of Bisignano’s tech dreams. The agency asked Congress for some $600 million in additional funding for investments, which he intends to use for online scheduling, detecting fraud, and much more, according to a list submitted to the House in late June.

But outside experts and former employees said Bisignano overstated the novelty of the ideas he presented to Congress. The agency has been updating its technology for years, but that does not necessarily mean thousands of its workers are suddenly obsolete, Romig said. It’s not bad that the upgrades are continuing, she said, but progress has been more incremental than revolutionary.

Some changes focus on spiffing up the agency’s public face. Bisignano told House lawmakers that he oversaw a redesign of the agency’s performance-statistics page to emphasize the number of automated calls and deemphasize statistics about call wait times. He called the latter stats “discouraging” and suggested that displaying them online might dissuade beneficiaries from calling.

Warren said Bisignano has since told her privately that he would allow an “inspector general audit” of their customer-service quality data and pledged to make a list of performance information publicly available. The agency has since updated its performance statistics page.

Other changes would come at greater cost and effort. In April, the agency rolled out a security authentication program for direct deposit changes, requiring beneficiaries to verify their identity in person if what the agency described in regulatory documents as an “automated” analysis system detects anomalies.

According to documents accompanying the proposal, the agency estimated about 5.8 million beneficiaries would be affected — and that it would cost the federal government nearly $1.2 billion, mostly driven by staff time devoted to assisting claimants. The agency is asking for nearly $7.7 billion in the upcoming fiscal year for payroll overall.

Christopher Hensley, a financial adviser in Houston, said one of his clients called him in May after her bank changed its routing number and Social Security stopped paying her, forcing her to borrow money from her family.

It turned out that the agency had flagged her account for fraud. Hensley said she had to travel 30 minutes to the nearest Social Security office to verify her identity and correct the problem.

Tahir writes for KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a clear mind about the value of Social Security on Aug. 14, 1935, the day he signed it into law.

“The civilization of the past hundred years, with its startling industrial changes, has tended more and more to make life insecure,” he said in the Oval Office. “We can never insure 100 per cent of the population against 100 per cent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against … poverty-ridden old age.”

He called it a “cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.” FDR envisioned further programs to bring relief to the needy and healthcare for all Americans. Some of that happened during the following nine decades, but the structure is still incomplete. And now, as Social Security observes the 90th anniversary of that day, the program faces a crisis.

If there are doubts about whether Social Security will survive long enough to observe its centennial, those have less to do with its fiscal challenges, the solutions of which are certainly within the economic reach of the richest nation on Earth. They have more to do with partisan politics, specifically the culmination of a decades-long GOP project to dismantle the most successful, and the most popular, government assistance program in American history.

From a distance, the raids on the program’s customer service infrastructure and the security of its data mounted by Elon Musk’s DOGE earlier this year looked somewhat random.

Fueled by abject ignorance about how the program worked and what its data meant, DOGE set in place plans to cut the program’s staff by 7,000, or 12 percent, and to close dozens of field offices serving Social Security applicants and beneficiaries. This at a time when the Social Security case load is higher than ever and staffing had already approached a 50-year low.

This might have been billed as an effort to impose “efficiency” on the system. But “a more accurate description,” writes Monique Morrissey of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, “is sabotage.”

That has been conservatives’ long-term plan — make interactions with Social Security more involved, more difficult and more time-consuming in order to make it seem ever less relevant to average Americans’ lives. Once that happened, the public would be softened up to accept a privatized retirement system.

Get the inefficient government off the backs of the people, the idea goes, so Wall Street can saddle up. George W. Bush’s privatization plan, indeed, was conceived and promoted by Wall Street bankers, who thirsted for access to the trillions of dollars passing through the system’s hands.

This was never much of a secret, but it simmered beneath the surface. But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at a July 30 event sponsored by Breitbart News, said the quiet part out loud. Referring to a private savings account program enacted as part of the GOP budget reconciliation bill Trump signed July 4, Bessent said, “In a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security.”

The private accounts are to be jump-started with $1,000 deposits for children born this year through 2028, to be invested in stock index mutual funds; families can add up to $5,000 annually in after-tax income, with withdrawals beginning when the child reaches 18, though in some cases incurring a stiff penalty.

I asked the Treasury Department for a clarification of Bessent’s remark, but didn’t receive a reply. Bessent, however, did try to walk the statement back via a post on X in which he stated that the Trump accounts are “an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments.”

Sorry, Mr. Secretary, no sale. You’re the one who talked about “privatizing Social Security” at the Breitbart event. You’re stuck with it.

Plainly, an “additive” benefit would have nothing to do with Social Security. How it would “supplement the sanctity” of Social Security benefits isn’t apparent from Bessent’s statement, or the law. Still, we can parse out the implications based on the long history of conservative attacks on the program.

In 1983, the libertarian Cato Journal published a paper by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis, two policy analysts at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, titled “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy—i.e., for privatizing Social Security. From Lenin they drew the idea of mobilizing the working class to undermine existing capitalist structures.

Cato’s “Leninist” strategy paper explicitly advocated encouraging workers to opt out of Social Security by promising them a payroll tax reduction if they put the money in a private account.

IRAs, the authors asserted, would acclimate Americans to entrusting their retirements to a privatized system. They advocated an increase in the maximum annual contribution and its tax deductibility.

“The public would gradually become more familiar with the private option,” they wrote. “If that did happen, it would be far easier than it is now to adopt the private plan as their principal source of old-age insurance and retirement income.” In other words, it would provide a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.

(Germanis has since emerged as a cogent critic of conservative economics. Butler served at Heritage until 2014 and is currently a scholar in residence at the Brookings Institution; he told me in March that he still believes in parallel systems of private retirement savings as we have today, but as “add on” savings rather than a substitute for Social Security.)

Cato, a think tank co-founded by Charles Koch, has never relinquished its quest to privatize Social Security; the notion still occupies pride of place on the institution’s web page devoted to the program.

In 2005, when I attended a two-day conference on the topic at Cato’s Washington headquarters, Michael D. Tanner, then the chair of Cato’s Social Security task force, explained that Cato wasn’t concerned so much with the system’s fiscal and economic issues as with its politics. Its goal, he stated frankly, was to unmake FDR’s New Deal.

“This is about whether we redefine a relationship between individuals and government that we’ve had since 1935,” he told me. “We say that what was done was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. Our position is that people need to be responsible for their own lives.”

Yet forcing dramatic change on a program so widely trusted and appreciated is a heavy lift. That’s why Republicans have tried to downplay their intentions. Back in 2019, for instance, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) talked about the need to hold discussions about Social Security’s future “behind closed doors.”

Secrecy was essential, Ernst said, “so we’re not being scrutinized by this group or the other, and just have an open and honest conversation about what are some of the ideas that we have for maintaining Social Security in the future.”

As I observed at the time, that was a giveaway: The only time politicians take actions behind closed doors is when they know the results will be massively unpopular. Raising taxes on the rich to pay for Social Security benefits? That discussion can be held in the open, because the option is decisively favored in opinion polls. Cut benefits? That needs to be done in secret, because Americans overwhelmingly oppose it.

Curiously, Trump and his fellow Republicans seem to think that attacking Social Security is an electoral winner. Possibly they’ve lost sight of the program’s importance to the average American.

Among Social Security beneficiaries age 65 and older, 39% of men and 44% of women receive half their income or more from Social Security. In the same cohort, 12% of men and 15% of women rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

Notwithstanding that reality, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently asserted that delays in sending out Social Security checks or bank deposits would be no big deal.

“Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month,” Lutnick said. “My mother-in-law, who’s 94 — she wouldn’t call and complain…. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month.” He claimed that only “fraudsters” would complain.

I had a different take. Mine was that even a 24-hour delay in benefit payments would have a cataclysmic fallout for the Republican Party. It would be front-page news coast to coast. There would be nowhere for them to hide.

While bringing misery to millions of Americans, a delay — which would be unprecedented since the first checks went out in 1940 — would be a gift for Democrats, if they knew how to use it.

Where will we go from here? The current administration has already done damage to this critically-important program. An acting commissioner Trump installed briefly interfered with the enrollment process for infants born in Maine—an important procedure to ensure that government benefits continue to flow to their families—because the state’s governor had pushed back against Trump in public.

In July, the newly-appointed Social Security commissioner, Frank Bisignano, allowed a false and flagrantly political email to go out to beneficiaries and to be posted on the program’s website implying that the budget reconciliation bill relieved most seniors of federal income taxes on their benefits. It did nothing of the kind.

To the extent that Social Security may face a fiscal reckoning in the next decade, the most effective fix is well-understood by those familiar with the program’s structure. It’s removing the income cap on the payroll tax, which tops out this year at $176,100 in wage income.

Up to that point, wages are taxed at 12.4%, split evenly between workers and their employers. Above the ceiling, the tax is zero. Remove the cap, and make capital gains, dividends and interest income subject to the tax, and Social Security will remain fully solvent into the foreseeable future.

Trump and his fellow Republicans don’t seem to understand how most Americans view Social Security: as an “entitlement,” not because they think they’re getting something for nothing, but because they know they’ve paid for it all their working lives.

As much as the system’s foes would like it to go away, as long as the rest of us remain vigilant against efforts to “redefine a relationship between individuals and government” established in 1935, we will be able to celebrate its 100th anniversary 10 years from now, in 2035.

Having extended most of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and added even more tax breaks, Congress is once again punting on the central fiscal question of our time: What kind of government do Americans want seriously enough to pay for?

Yes, the Big Beautiful Bill avoided a massive tax increase and includes pro-growth reforms. It also adds to the debt — by how much is debatable — and that’s before we get to the budgetary reckoning of Social Security and Medicare’s impending insolvency. Against that backdrop, it’s infuriating to see a $9-billion rescission package — one drop in the deficit bucket — met with cries of bloody murder.

The same can be said of the apocalyptic discourse surrounding the Big Beautiful Bill’s reduction in Medicaid spending. In spite of the cuts, the program is projected to grow drastically over the next 10 years. In fact, the reforms barely scratch the surface considering its enormous growth under President Biden.

Maybe we wouldn’t keep operating this way — pretending like minor trims are major reforms while refusing to tackle demographic and entitlement time bombs ticking beneath our feet — if we stayed focused on the question of what, considering the cost, we’re willing to pay for.

Otherwise, it’s too easy to continue committing a generational injustice toward our children and grandchildren. That’s because all the benefits and subsidies that we’re unwilling to pay for will eventually have to be paid for in the future with higher taxes, inflation or both. That’s morally and economically reprehensible.

Admitting we have a problem is hard. Fixing it is even harder, especially when politicians obscure costs and fail to recognize the following realities.

First, growing the economy can, of course, be part of the solution. It creates more and better opportunities, raising incomes and tax revenue without raising tax rates — the rising tide that can lift many fiscal boats. But when we’re this far underwater, short of a miracle produced by an energy and artificial intelligence revolution, growth alone simply won’t be enough.

Raising taxes on the rich will fall short, too. Despite another round of loud calls to do so, like those now emanating from the New York City mayoral campaign, remember: The federal tax code is already highly progressive.

Here’s something else that should be common knowledge: Higher tax rates do not automatically translate to more tax revenue. Not even close. Federal revenues have consistently hovered around 17% to 18% of GDP for more than 50 years — through periods of high tax rates, low tax rates and every combination of deductions, exemptions and credits in between.

This remarkable stability is no fluke. It reflects a basic reality of human behavior: When tax rates go up, people don’t simply continue what they’ve been doing and hand over more money. They work less, take compensation in non-taxable forms, delay selling assets, move to lower-tax jurisdictions or increase tax-avoidance strategies.

Meanwhile, higher rates reduce incentives to invest, hire, and create or expand businesses, slowing growth and undermining the very revenue gains legislators expect. It’s why economic literature shows that fiscal-adjustment packages made mostly of tax increases usually fail to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Real-world responses mean that higher tax rates rarely generate what static models predict as we bear the costs of less work, less innovation and less productivity leading to fewer opportunities for everyone, rich or poor.

If the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change, no amount of rate fiddling will sustainably result in more than 17-18% in tax collections.

Political dynamics guarantee further disappointment. When Congress raises taxes on one group, it often turns around and cuts taxes elsewhere to offset the backlash. Then, when the government does manage to collect extra revenue — through windfall-profits taxes, inflation causing taxpayers to creep into higher brackets, or a booming economy — that money rarely goes toward deficit reduction. It gets spent, and then some.

It’s long past time to shift the conversation away from whether tax cuts should be “paid for.” Instead, ask what level of spending we truly want with the money we truly have.

I suspect that most people aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to fund everything our current government does, and that more would feel this way if they understood our tax-collection limitations. That points toward the need to cut spending on, among other things, corporate welfare, economically distorting subsidies, flashy infrastructure gimmicks, and Social Security and Medicare.

Until we align Congress’ promises with what we’re willing and able to fund, we’ll continue down this dangerous path of illusion, denial, and intergenerational theft — as we cope with economic decline.

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.