Does it Make Sense for Anyone Under Age 35 to Vote for David Cicilline, Part 1

As the Social Security program is currently constructed, a permanent 25% cut in benefits paid is projected to occur in 2037. Those figures are projected by the Social Security Trustees themselves.

I know people of my generation tend to view a date of 2037 as the far-future, when we will all be flying our jet-packs to work, but it is no longer that far away. One way to think of 2037 is as the year that citizens currently 35 years old become eligible to start collecting Social Security (at age 62). If no changes to the Social Security program are made, then before they ever receive their first check, the government will likely be announcing that benefits are permanently (as in not for just one year) being scaled back by 25% of the baseline paid out in previous years.

Those who may be prone to the Rhode Island mentality of "I got mine, and I'm vestaaaaahd, so all the problems are yours" should know that they are not immune to the impact of this cut. There is no such thing as "vested" in Social Security. All SS beneficiaries will be eligible to be impacted by the 25% reduction in outlays, whether they are in their first year of retirement, or they've been collecting benefits for 20 years prior.

But if everyone collecting Social Security may be impacted by a 25% benefit cut in 2037, then, you may ask, why should people aged 35 and under be singled out in the title...