President Donald Trump has vowed not to cut Social Security benefits, and it’s easy to understand his position: Proposing even modest reforms to the entitlement program represents a likely path to early retirement for even the most popular politician.

But the structural defects of Social Security have become harder to ignore. And as the federal retirement program approaches a fiscal cliff, there are signs that some in Washington are finally taking the problem seriously.

The latest trustees report on Social Security, released in June, finds that the trust fund will run dry in 2033, a year earlier than expected. If nothing is done, recipients can expect a 23 percent benefit cut when that day arrives. It’s a virtual certainty that Congress won’t let this happen, but simply borrowing the money to cover the deficits is not a financially prudent solution, particularly with the country already $37 trillion in debt and counting.

The reality that inaction carries more political peril than reform may now be dawning among members of the Beltway class.

The Wall Street Journal reports that “the Trump administration is signaling interest in finding a way to sustain the massive retirement fund’s solvency.” This comes just weeks after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent noted that the looming insolvency date “underscores the need for lawmakers to take action to support the long-term viability” of Social Security and Medicare.

The Journal reports that the Social Security Administration’s former chief information officer suggested putting a portion of the trust fund’s $2.7 trillion into a “Treasury note that would be convertible to S&P 500 equity at maturity,” allowing better returns. While the Social Security commissioner does not favor such an approach, the paper reported, he testified to a House committee that “I think we’ve all been vocal that our intent is to have this problem solved.”

This will require creative thinking rather than simply raising taxes on the “rich,” which would fundamentally alter Social Security by further disrupting the relationship between contributions and benefits. Mr. Bessent, for instance, recently floated the idea of creating a U.S. sovereign wealth fund to invest in assets on behalf of the federal government that could help shore up the prorgam for decades to come.

Whether such a fund is a good idea will be a matter of debate. Politics will inevitably dominate oversight of such an account, potentially hindering returns and undermining market efficiency. But the fact that some high-ranking Washington officials are talking about innovative solutions rather than playing deaf and blind represents a small step forward.

Every day of inertia wrought by politics makes it only more likely that current recipients will eventually be forced to pay the price.

— From Tribune News Service