Are The Republicans Eliminating Social Security?

While I wouldn't put it past them for a minute, the evidence that they are going to end, or even significantly cut Social Security benefits is murky at best. Despite there being no clearly articulated plans, there have been hints from various Republicans.

Before we look at that - a brief review of how Social Security works:

12.4% of every person's wage is collected as payroll deductions (6.2% paid by the employer, 6.2% paid by the employee - self-employed people pay the whole 12.4%). This money is then used to pay benefits to current retirees. Whatever is left over, i.e. the annual surplus, is invested in U.S. Treasury securities. The general budget fund pays interest on the Treasury bills which are redeemed at such a time when benefits paid exceed payroll taxes collected. Some previous explanations can be found here. 

We are now at the point where benefits paid out exceed payroll taxes collected each year. What this means is the Treasury securities will need to be redeemed in order to make up the annual shortfall. There are multiple scenarios projecting when the accumulated surplus will run out. 

 In the chart to the left, the Social Security Administration considers Scenario II to be the most realistic, which would put 2037 as the year of insolvency. Scenarios I and III are respectively more pessimistic and more optimistic. The next chart shows what will happen if nothing is done between now and 2037:

There will still be enough income from payroll taxes to pay benefits, but only at 76% of their scheduled rate. In other words, if no action is taken, Social Security recipients will lose 25% of their benefits. So, when we hear politicians talking about entitlement reform (yes, Social Security is an entitlement as explained here) it's a good thing, whether it actually turns out to be good or bad will determine whether it's good or bad for American seniors. In order to make up the difference between what coming in and what's going out, one or more of several things would need to happen

• Leave it alone and reduce benefits
• Increase the retirement age (effectively reducing benefits)
• Increase the percentage of the payroll tax
• Remove the cap on earnings subject to FICA deductions
• Fund Social Security deficits through borrowing (the Social Security Administration currently does not have borrowing authority)
• Fund Social Security deficits through the general fund budget

Republicans have not put forth any plan (and neither have Democrats), but they have offered a few hints, and history offers some glimpses into their thinking as well:

• Senator Rick Scott has suggested that every piece of legislation have a "sunset" date, this presumably would include Social Security. Senator Scott has also suggested that the tax code be changed so that every American pay some taxes (currently millions of Americans pay no income tax due to low wages, Earned Income Credit or other deductions)
• Senator Lindsey Graham was recently quoted as saying that "people like him" (presumably retirement-age people) would have to "take a little less" and "pay a little more in"
• The 2017 tax reform bill, advertised as a "massive" tax cut for all Americans, turned out to be a bonanza for corporations and wealthy Americans, with a modest, almost undetectable, tax cut for low to middle wage earners
• Way back in 1983 under President Reagan, a portion of Social Security benefits became taxable

If either party had control of the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it likely, based on past performance, that Democrats would make changes that would protect current benefit levels, even at the expense of increasing general fund deficits, possibly even expanding Medicare. Removing or significantly raising the cap would also probably happen. Republicans, if history is any guide, would take actions such as raising retirement age, or increasing payroll taxes, possibly creating a two-tier system of benefits so that future wage earners would see reduced benefits. But the way things are going, it is unlikely in the extreme that even if one party controls Congress with one of their own as president, that they could achieve a filibuster-proof majority. (Although I have no illusions that the Republicans wouldn't eliminate the filibuster if it were in their interest to do so). 

S, what is the solution? Is there any solution being seriously debated? Despite right-wing meanderings by Senators Scott and Graham, and left-wing suggestions by Senators Sanders and Warren, there seems to be no sense of urgency by either party and the "plan" appears to be to kick the can down the road until it's an unavoidable crisis.