The following article is a guest submission and is republished for its relevance to third party and independent politics. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Outsider Media Foundation or Independent Political Report. Readers can learn more about the author in the bio at the end of the article.
In 2033, Social Security benefits will be automatically slashed by 23%. No Congressional vote. No debate. Just math.
The trust fund runs dry, incoming revenue covers only 77 cents of every dollar owed, and 68 million Americans take an immediate pay cut. This isn’t partisan spin, it’s the Social Security Administration’s own projection.
Republicans won’t touch it because they remember what happened to George W. Bush. Democrats won’t touch it because their base treats any reform as betrayal. Both parties have calculated that kicking the can is safer than leading.
Which means the issue is sitting there, waiting for someone willing to tell the truth.
This is exactly the kind of opening third parties exist to exploit.
The Math Neither Party Will Discuss
Social Security’s finances aren’t complicated, they’re just ugly.
The program runs a $240 billion annual deficit. The 75-year shortfall is $22.6 trillion in present value. When the system launched, sixteen workers paid in for every retiree drawing out. Today it’s 2.7-to-1 and falling.
The traditional “solutions” are tax hikes or benefit cuts. Democrats want the former. Republicans want the latter. Neither will say so publicly, and neither addresses the underlying structural flaw: Social Security isn’t a retirement fund. It’s a wealth transfer from younger workers to older retirees, and the demographic math has collapsed.
Meanwhile, Australia built a system that actually works. Since 1992, their “superannuation” program has required employers to contribute 12% of wages into personal accounts that workers own, invest, and pass to their heirs. Result: $3 trillion in retirement assets for a country of 27 million people. The Mercer CFA Institute gives Australia’s system a B+. America gets a C+.
President Trump mentioned in December 2024 that his administration is “looking very seriously” at Australian-style reforms. Treasury Secretary Bessent has met with superannuation officials. But serious structural reform requires political courage that neither major party has demonstrated.
A Proposal Built (Mostly) on Libertarian Principles
A comprehensive reform framework called the American Super Plan offers something neither major party will propose: a complete transition from government promises to individual ownership. While no government mandated program can truly be built on “Libertarian Principles”, this would replace a massive entitlement program with a retirement program driven by your own hard work and using dollars you own.
The core structure splits the workforce by age. Workers 50 and older remain in Social Security with enhanced funding to ensure their benefits are protected. Workers under 49 transition to mandatory personal retirement accounts, portable, investable, inheritable, and belonging entirely to the individual.
The libertarian appeal is obvious: you own your retirement. You choose your investments from regulated low-cost funds. When you die, your balance goes to your family, not back to the government. No more trusting politicians to keep promises they’ve already proven they can’t fund.
The projected savings over 75 years: $10.5 trillion compared to the status quo. Not through benefit cuts, but through transitioning to a system that doesn’t require perpetual wealth transfer from young to old.
The Financing Mechanism That Makes It Work
The transition costs money—you can’t stop collecting from younger workers while still paying older retirees without bridging the gap. Traditional proposals either ignore this problem or assume massive government borrowing.
The American Super Plan includes an innovative mechanism called “Patriot Life Insurance” that should intrigue anyone skeptical of government debt. Wealthy Americans voluntarily purchase tax-exempt investment accounts, paying $100 to receive $90 in invested value. At death, heirs receive the full market value with zero estate tax and zero capital gains tax.
The government keeps the 10% spread, immediate revenue, no interest payments, no debt, no liability. The wealthy get an estate planning vehicle that dramatically improves wealth transfer efficiency. Both sides win through voluntary exchange rather than coercion.
That’s the kind of market-based solution that could unite fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and even progressives who like framing it as “billionaires paying 10% to fund retirement reform.”
Why This Issue Could Build a Coalition
Consider who benefits from real Social Security reform:
Workers under 50 get ownership instead of IOUs. Workers over 50 get their benefits protected. The wealthy get a tax-advantaged vehicle. Taxpayers save trillions. Future generations aren’t saddled with debt.
The only losers are politicians who benefit from crisis and bureaucrats who benefit from dependency.
A third party or independent movement that championed this kind of comprehensive reform would have something neither major party offers: an actual answer to a problem everyone knows is coming. Not vague promises. Not partisan finger-pointing. A specific, scoreable plan with real fiscal projections.
The 2024 election showed that voters are hungry for candidates who will address problems rather than manage decline. Immigration, inflation, crime—these issues moved because someone was willing to be direct about them. Social Security is the next domino.
Sixty-eight million Americans depend on this program. Another 180 million are paying into it. Every one of them will be affected when the trust fund runs dry. That’s not a niche constituency, that’s the entire electorate.
The Recruiting Opportunity
Third parties perpetually struggle with the “wasted vote” problem. Voters like the principles but doubt the viability. The way to break that cycle is to own an issue so completely that major-party candidates have to respond to you.
Social Security reform is that issue. It’s massive, it’s inevitable, it’s bipartisan in its neglect, and it rewards whoever gets there first with the credibility of having led.
Imagine a Libertarian, Forward, or independent candidate in 2026 or 2028 running on: “I have a specific plan to save Social Security $10 trillion while giving you ownership of your retirement. My opponents have talking points.”
That’s not a protest candidacy. That’s a credible alternative.
The detailed fiscal analysis, including year-by-year projections, transition mechanics, and the full Patriot Life Insurance structure is available here for anyone who wants to pressure their representatives or incorporate these ideas into a platform.
Eight Years
That’s what’s left before automatic cuts hit. Eight years to either solve this or watch it collapse.
The major parties have shown they won’t lead. They’ll wait until crisis forces action, then pass something hasty and blame each other for the pain.
Third parties and independents have a different option: lead now, build credibility, and let the major parties play catch-up. The voters who care about fiscal responsibility, individual ownership, and honest governance are already looking for somewhere to go.
The issue is there. The math is done. The question is whether anyone outside the two-party duopoly has the vision to seize it.
Todd: You already know that there’s a benefits cap on Social Security payments, so I don’t know what you’re referring to otherwise.
Second, other “developed” nations have fixed any demographic issues with their retirement systems without privatizing.
Third, most such countries don’t have a “FICA tax”; their retirement systems are funded out of general income.
Fourth, such countries also have national health care systems, which I’m sure you oppose.
I doubt I’ll come back for another comment.
Thank you, Todd.
BTW, it’s Seebeck, not Seeback…if I had a nickel for every time that happened, I’d be retired.
Hey Seeback,
Thank you for the question. I am violently against all three.
1) This is pure wealth redistribution, even worse than the current plan – Straight-up theft.
2) Brand new tax – Straight up theft
3) I like the sentiment, but the US does not have the money. The fact is that you have ZERO dollars in the social security “trust fund”. It basically has 1-2 years of benefits in the fund at any given time, which is why it is a ponzi scheme, because it relies solely on new dollars coming in to pay its obligations. The plan you are proposing would cost the US between $4-$12 Trillion dollars depending on the estimate and whether you count employer obligations.
Todd, what’s your take on the following ideas?
1. Remove the tax cap entirely, but cap benefits based on average overall income of some (I don’t know exactly what) dollar amount?
2. Flip the tax cap so it’s a minimum, and possibly apply it to capital gains?
3. 1-time opt out for everyone, where those who paid in, can pull out all of their money?
Not trying to trap, just things I’ve thought about. Individual accounts instead of the bathtub is the way to go, too.
Thank you for the comment SocraticGadfly. Raising the cap does not accomplish anything unless you also gut the algorithm so that the rich get far less. If you raise my cap, my benefit just gets higher based on the current algorithm. So, yes, any change like that would be “soaking the rich”. If you saw, I did remove the cap entirely for employers, which does provide a ton of new income to the current and future program. That is a step we should do if we want to save a retirement program in general. I also raised the total employer premium.
So, I don’t think it is a fair criticism to say I am just repackaging old ideas. I have offered a significant change where the employers lead the way in funding current social security and starting the future version.
Hagiopan is right — Republicans are fine with crashing Social Security while Democrats are fine with blaming them while doing nothing. Dementia Joe’s party DID control House and Senate his first two years. Democrats won’t touch it, Todd, because their actual “base” is the left hand of rich duopoly donors.
That said? Like the bon mot about Marx being great on description, horrible on prescription? That’s what Hagiopan is with just another plan to privatize Social Security.
What if, instead, Todd, we got the cap on the Social Security half of FICA taxation raised to, say, $250K, instead of the current $176K and change? Better yet, we could stretch the Social Security portion of FICA to ALL income, like Medicare already is.
Not much simpler of a fix than that. Or is that “soaking the rich”?
==
Per why Social Security isn’t privatized? What happens when the next Great Recession hits? Does the government guarantee that rate of return on that life insurance annuity? (That’s what your “patriot” idea is, and this leftist gets as turned off by “patriot” type branding as by the main idea.
And, of course Mercer rates Australia higher. It’s a financial management company that surely is getting fees from managing many of these Aussie accounts, and, per its own website (teh Google) has partnered with Monash University.
And, other countries that have not privatized systems but have better anticipated their futures are also ranked higher than the US by Mercer.
Thank you, Don! We should talk!
This is an excellent plan.
The Christian Nationalist Party fully endorses it.
Don J. Grundmann, D C .
Chairman, Constitution Party of California
Founder/Chairman Christian Nationalist Party