每个选举周期我们都被告知，这一次将是我们一生中最关键的选举。但对于依赖社会保障的7000多万美国人来说，这次选举确实至关重要——因为今年11月当选的参议员将需要在任期结束前拯救社会保障。对于如此重要的问题，目前的沉默令人不安。
We’re told every election cycle that this one will be the most consequential of our lifetimes. But for the more than 70 million Americans who rely on Social Security, this election really does matter — because senators elected this November will need to save Social Security before their terms are up. For an issue this important, the silence thus far is unnerving.
每年社会保障受托人都会发布报告，警告该计划即将面临的财政悬崖——现在预计将在2032年到来，仅剩六年。从那时起，社会保障信托基金将耗尽，年度工资税收入将仅能覆盖承诺福利的78%。受托人已发出此类警告数十年。本以为我们的民选领导人早就该采取行动避免悬崖了。然而，年复一年，总统和国会都无视受托人的警告。为什么？
Every year the Social Security Trustees issue a report warning about the program’s impending fiscal cliff — now slated for 2032, just six years away. Starting in that year, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted, and annual payroll tax revenue will cover only 78 percent of promised benefits. The Trustees have issued this warning for decades. You would think our elected leaders would have done something by now to avoid the cliff. Yet, year after year the president and Congress ignore the Trustee’s warning. Why?
答案简单却令人悲哀。我们的领导人拒绝领导。就民主党而言，他们基本拒绝考虑对该计划成本的任何限制。与此同时，共和党基本拒绝考虑用收入来覆盖这些成本。除少数例外——比如共和党近期出现迹象，显示对调整工资税上限持开放态度——双方依然对妥协持反对态度。
The answer is simple, but sad. Our leaders will not lead. For their part, Democrats have largely refused to consider any restraint on the program’s costs. Meanwhile, Republicans have largely refused to consider revenue to cover those costs. With a few exceptions — such as recent stirrings among Republicans suggesting an openness to changing the payroll tax cap — both sides remain opposed to compromise.
1983年，我正处于国会首个任期——实际上是上任最初几周——社会保障陷入危机，流入资金少于流出资金。遗憾的是，当时和现在一样，政客们等到最后一刻才修补问题。
In 1983, I was in my first term in Congress — actually in my first weeks on the job — and Social Security was in a crisis with less money flowing in than flowing out. Sadly, then, like now, politicians waited until the last minute to fix the problem.
我们通过的解决方案结合了福利限制与增收。我们逐步将退休年龄从65岁提高到67岁。此外，我们加速提高工资税，并对富裕退休人员增税。这些变化预计能维持社会保障体系偿付能力75年。
The solution we enacted combined benefit restraint with additional revenue. We increased the retirement age gradually from 65 to 67. In addition, we accelerated payroll tax increases alongside higher taxes on wealthy retirees. Those changes were expected to maintain solvency in the Social Security system for 75 years.
但这些预测是错误的。它们在某些方面过于乐观，例如生育率和工资增长。自2010年以来，社会保障面临年度现金短缺，不得不动用储备金来支付全额福利。
But the projections were wrong. They were too optimistic in certain ways, such as fertility rates and wage growth. Since 2010, Social Security has faced annual cash shortfalls, drawing down its reserves to pay full benefits.
社会保障受托人现在预计，该计划成本与收入之间的这种根本性失衡将持续并扩大。很快，这些赤字将耗尽该计划的储备金。与原本希望维持偿付能力至2058年不同，我们现在面临的是2032年的严重缺口。
Social Security’s Trustees now project this fundamental imbalance between the program’s costs and its revenues to continue, and to grow. Very soon, these deficits will exhaust the program’s reserves. Instead of maintaining solvency until 2058, as hoped, we are facing a serious shortfall in 2032.
同样，政客们正在等到最后一刻。到时候，就像现在一样，解决办法将需要同时削减成本和增加收入。而等待会带来可衡量的成本。例如，常被引用的取消工资税上限的方案，如果在1995年实施，本可以填补75年的偿付能力缺口。现在，它只能填补三分之二的缺口。
Again, politicians are waiting until the last minute. Then, like now, the fix will require both reducing costs and adding revenue. And waiting carries a measurable cost. For example, the oft-cited solution to eliminate the payroll tax cap could have closed the 75-year solvency gap if enacted in 1995. Now, it would close two thirds of the gap.
当你考虑到恢复社会保障体系偿付能力的选项并不缺乏时，拖延的代价就显得更加严重。在众多选项中，有将工资税延伸至更高收入水平、将退休年龄与预期寿命挂钩、为较富裕的退休人员设定生活成本调整上限，或提供统一费率调整。你甚至可以亲自尝试使用互动改革模拟工具来修复该计划。在此过程中，你会了解到不存在轻松、无痛的解决方案。底线是：等待时间越长，情况只会越糟。
The cost of delay is made even worse when you consider there really is no shortage of options to restore solvency to the Social Security System. Among the many options out there are extending the payroll tax to higher income levels, linking the retirement age to longevity, capping cost-of-living-adjustments for wealthier retirees or offering a flat rate adjustment. You can even try fixing the program yourself using interactive reform simulations. In doing so, you will learn that there is no easy, pain-free fix. The bottom line is that waiting longer only makes matters worse.
这就是为什么这次选举如此重要。社会保障的未来今年非常大程度上取决于选票。无论党派，美国人都有权知道我们的领导人计划采取什么行动来避免不可接受的结果。候选人如何谈论这个问题将说明一切。
That is why this election matters so much. The future of Social Security is very much on the ballot this year. Regardless of party, Americans deserve to know what our leaders are planning to do to avoid an unacceptable outcome. How candidates talk about this will be telling.
首先，要警惕那些说不会动社会保障的政客。如果他们不愿动手，就无法修复它。
First and foremost, be wary of politicians who say they will not touch Social Security. If they won’t touch it, they can’t fix it.
对于声称会保护你的社会保障却不说明如何保护的政客，也要保持怀疑。保护社会保障需要在成本和收入方面做出一些艰难的抉择。一切都必须摆到桌面上来。如果候选人把削减福利排除在外——或者坚持把税收排除在外，他们就不是在领导，而是在误导你。保护社会保障是一句好听的口号。但它不是解决方案。
Be skeptical too of politicians who claim they will protect your Social Security without saying how. Protecting Social Security requires some tough choices about costs and revenues. Everything has to be on the table. If candidates take benefit cuts off the table — or if they insist on taking taxes off the table, they are not leading; they are misleading you. Protecting Social Security is a nice slogan. But it is not a solution.
蒂姆·彭尼是“负责任联邦预算委员会”的联合主席。1982年至1994年，他代表明尼苏达州第一国会选区担任美国众议院议员。
Tim Penny is a co-chair of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He represented Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1982 to 1994.