Social Security is headed for a day of reckoning, and Congress is running out of time to save boomers. Lawmakers are proposing some hard choices

Congress has long dodged any Social Security reforms that would cut benefits, hike taxes, or do both. But those days of procrastination are coming to an end, and some lawmakers are facing up to that reality. The clock is ticking and getting louder. New projections this month showed that the Social Security trust fund will run out of money sooner than previously thought, meaning benefits would face a 22% cut by 2032 unless adjustments are enacted. For years, revenue from payroll taxes has been insufficient to fund current benefits, and the trust fund covered the gap. But once it runs out, Social Security will only be able to distribute what comes in. With the insolvency cliff just six years away, senators elected in this year’s midterm races will likely cast votes on a solution. Already, some proposals have emerged. Raising more revenue Sens. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently touted their plan to raise more revenue via payroll taxes in a New York Times op-ed. Right now, annual pay up to $184,500 is subject to Social Security taxes. But above that threshold, any additional income avoids the tax. But the senators pointed out that the vast majority of Americans make less than that, meaning Social Security taxes apply to 100% of their income while top earners only pay on a fraction of theirs. “Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck than a wealthy corporate lawyer?” they wrote. “This is doubly unfair in an economy in which top earners’ wages, over time, have pulled far ahead of those of the average worker.” Moreno and Warren proposed removing the tax cap, citing a report from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation that estimated such a change would generate about $3 trillion for the program over 10 years. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., have also offered a plan to raise more revenue. Rather than eliminate the cap, however, it would lift the payroll tax income t