Martin O'Malley, who ran Social Security under President Biden, said the program's projected money crisis is "entirely solvable." He's pushing back against the idea that a deadline in 2033 means the program will collapse.

The 2033 date comes from official reports by the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, which forecast that without action, the Social Security trust fund—the account where money sits to pay benefits—will run short within seven years. When that happens, incoming payroll taxes will cover only about 77 to 80 cents of every dollar the program is scheduled to pay out. This is not a shutdown. It's an automatic benefit cut that would affect roughly 70 million Americans who receive or will receive Social Security checks.

O'Malley's point, reported by MarketWatch on June 11, 2026, is mathematically accurate. The numbers are clear, and the fixes are well-known. You could raise the maximum earnings taxed for Social Security (currently $168,600), increase the payroll tax rate, push back the retirement age, change how cost-of-living increases work, or ask higher earners to take smaller benefits. You could mix and match these options. The Social Security Administration has studied hundreds of combinations. None of them require miracles.

The real problem is not math—it's politics. Congress has not passed a major Social Security overhaul since 1983, when the Greenspan Commission put together a package of tax increases, gradual retirement age changes, and broader coverage. That deal happened because the program was about to run out of money. It took a crisis to make Congress act. Now the next crunch is forecast for 2033. That date can feel far away until it suddenly arrives.

Why this matters to your wallet: U.S. government borrowing costs depend partly on how much people trust America's long-run finances. A serious fix to Social Security would tell markets that Washington can tackle big problems. That could lower the interest rates the government pays on its debt. A fix would also reassure people that their benefits are secure. Right now, political paralysis means these trust factors stay shaky.

O'Malley's statement carries weight because he's not an outside expert—he actually ran the agency. When he says the problem is solvable, he's not just reciting facts. He's arguing that benefit cuts aren't the only answer, which tips the scales toward raising taxes instead. That's the real debate: who pays for the fix.

For people watching the calendar, 2033 isn't a hard brick wall. The trust fund empties gradually, and Congress can still act after that date passes. The government's official forecasts have shifted before, and they could move again based on wages, how many people work, or how long people live. But one thing won't change: there are fewer workers per retiree than there used to be. In the 1960s, five workers supported each retiree. Today it's under three, and that ratio keeps falling.

Here's the trap: the longer Congress waits, the harder the fix becomes. Small, gradual changes cost less than sudden, big ones. Waiting until 2033 or later means any fix will be sharper and more painful. O'Malley is right that Congress can solve this. The question is whether they'll do it soon enough to keep it relatively painless.