Final answer:
Politicians are hesitant to cut Social Security due to potential voter alienation, especially among older voters, and the risk of negative backlash. Proposals for change, including privatization, often face criticism. Long-term projections by the Congressional Budget Office show that spending on Social Security and Medicare will rise, leading to difficult fiscal choices.
Step-by-step explanation:
Politicians are often reluctant to cut Social Security because doing so could potentially alienate older voters who are more likely to vote and depend on those benefits. Demographic trends indicate that with an aging population, the costs of Social Security are expected to rise, which may require tough decisions on spending, tax increases, or changes in eligibility. Political capital and the risk of backlash also play a role, as any significant changes could result in negative perceptions and harm a politician's reelection prospects. Moreover, proposals to privatize the system face criticism for potentially undermining the New Deal's welfare intentions and for creating additional revenue streams for financial managers at the expense of beneficiaries.
Long-term projections from the Congressional Budget Office suggest that Medicare and Social Security spending combined will rise significantly as a percentage of GDP, leading to potential budgetary shortfalls. To address these shortfalls, several options are available: increasing taxes, cutting other spending, raising the retirement age, or accepting large federal deficits. However, these solutions have struggled to gain broad support due to the direct impact on voters and the complex implications for the economy and public welfare.