For several years, Congressman John Larson (D-CT) has been trying to save Social Security, with a plan he calls the Social Security 2100 Act.

Larson has introduced the bill multiple times over the years, but it's taken on new urgency this year, since the announcement that the main trust fund that funds Social Security is likely to run out in 2033, a year earlier than previously thought. Rep. Larson, who is now the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, recently held a hearing on the proposal.

The plan takes a series of measures that would serve to buy Social Security a few more years before a more permanent solution is found later. The current package would improve benefits for current beneficiaries, while also switching from the current COLA formula to the CPI-E formula. It would also raise taxes on high-wage earners.

The Biden Administration has not endorsed the bill, although Larson has specifically tailored it to fit what President Joe Biden has said in the past about his priorities. The bill currently has nearly 200 sponsors, across both houses of Congress, although

The hearing that was recently held indicated that Larson’s plan does not have bipartisan support, although some Republicans stated that they are not opposed to Social Security reform in general.

Now, a piece in Forbes, written by the author of the Jane the Actuary blog, has made a more generalized case against the Social Security 2100 proposal.

The piece, which appeared over the weekend, argues that the bill “has changed substantially.”

“It no longer targets restored solvency,” the piece argues. “It no longer asks all Americans to pay more to fund benefit improvements they themselves would receive at retirement…. Most concerningly, it plays the same games with temporary benefits as in the Build Back Better bill, but with more serious consequences.”

The current version of the bill, Forbes argues, would only increase its benefits for a five-year period. The piece went on to quote Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, in stating that allowing the benefits to expire after five years would  lead to  “chaos administratively and in terms of public perceptions.”

The same argument was made about President Biden’s now-in-peril Build Back Better spending package, which only extended the expanded child tax credit by one year, while leaving the onus on future Congresses to extend the benefit beyond then, while also leaving them the obligation of finding a way to pay for it.

“The staff of the Social Security Administration and the agency’s computer capability are already stretched thin; implementing a dozen new provisions would be an enormous challenge. And think about explaining to angry participants why their cost-of-living adjustments suddenly drop when the CPI-E provision expires,” Munnell wrote.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist, and film critic, who is also a contributor to The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters