Without seeming to make barely a ripple, a startling report was released in June revealing that America’s Social Security program will become insolvent in six years unless substantial reforms are made. Now, lawmakers are beginning to sound the alarm on the rapidly spiraling crisis and are pushing legislation to overhaul the system originally designed to keep elderly Americans out of poverty.

The report, released by the trustees who oversee Social Security, found that the program will become insolvent by 2032 if current spending levels are maintained. At that point, the 70 million American beneficiaries would see their benefits cut by 22% in order for the program to continue operating. The forecast moved the insolvency date up a year from a previous estimate of 2033, citing increased federal spending and a plunging birth rate as primary reasons.

The Social Security program began in 1935 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, with the first payments being issued two years later. The program was conceived as a way to ensure that senior citizens would not become destitute once they reached an age when they could no longer physically work. The program has arguably been highly successful at achieving this goal, with 53% of retirees saying Social Security is their primary source of income and 14% saying the benefits amount to at least 90% of their income. Overall, it is estimated that the program lifts over 22 million Americans over the poverty line every year.

But over time, the monthly benefits that the program has doled out have gradually increased, now to a point where more money is going out to beneficiaries than is coming in from taxpayers. As Reason reported, a 1977 measure voted in by Congress increased payments by indexing them “to national average wage growth” instead of inflation. This has put the program on a path to insolvency because “wages have consistently grown faster than inflation in recent decades.” As a result, the “average two-income household getting $60,000 in annual Social Security benefits is receiving more than twice the amount needed to keep them above the poverty line.”

But as lawmakers like Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) point out, the quick fixes to Social Security are not popular on the Hill.

“The solutions sound easy until you actually look at the trade-offs,” he noted during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday. “… I can tell you that nobody in Congress really wants to raise taxes or cut benefits, and those who depend upon these benefits don’t want the benefits cut. So the politics of it are very difficult, even if it appears the solutions are easy.”

In March, Cassidy introduced an innovative plan to save Social Security by establishing a sovereign wealth fund that delivers benefits to the program via investments.

“[M]oney [would be put] in a fund separate from the Social Security trust fund, you don’t touch the trust fund,” he explained, noting that it would work in the same way as a 401(k) plan. “Our economy is so strong. The returns on that over time, with all the proceeds going back in, ends up paying for 65% of the benefits needed over the next 70 years. Sixty-five percent is not 100%, but it makes everything else a lot easier. … [I]n our plan, we actually increased benefits for some [and] try and make it fairer. … We give families [or] an individual up to five years’ credit for taking time off to raise a child. If a mom steps away from the workforce now, she loses it later. We make it so she can take five years off — a real pro-family agenda. We’ve got bipartisan support, which is one of those things you need if you’re going to fix Social Security.”

Cassidy went on to lament how most congressmen think that Social Security can’t be touched because of how sacred it has become in the eyes of voters. “What I’ve been pushing is, yes, we can touch Social Security because we’re going to rescue it. If you’re going to rescue somebody who’s drowning, you’ve got to touch them, and [you’ve] got to pull them to the shore.”

As for the prospects of success for Cassidy’s proposed legislation, he acknowledged that there is a short window for getting it done before he leaves office next January following his primary defeat in May. “[T]he window is closing. I’m trying to maybe do something after the midterm elections. Can we have a hearing, mark up, something? Because I’m afraid that when Dick Durbin [D-Ill.] and I leave Congress — and we both are at the end of this year — there won’t be anybody pushing it like we are. The longer you wait, the harder it is. The deeper the cuts, the higher the tax increases.”