Does it Make Sense for Anyone Under Age 35 43 to Vote for David Cicilline, Part 2

As currently structured, Social Security benefits are projected to be cut by 25% in the year when people currently aged 35 will first become eligible to retire (age 62). And those who are 43 or under right now, and don't retire until age 70, will find themselves in the same position -- every check received under the current program structure will be subject to the 25% cut relative to the benefit levels promised by the current benefit formula. Those are figures come straight from the Social Security Trustees...

After 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation’s retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. The annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets* in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.

This kind is the kind of imbalance is what progressives like to refer to as fair and equitable. Which is one reason many have come to the conclusion that progressives are fiscally insane.

However, it is entirely fair to point out that the benefit cuts discussed above may impact all retirees collecting Social Security, in the year where current 35 year-olds can first begin to collect, ergo I still haven't really told you why it's a particularly bad idea for those 35 and under, and maybe those 43 and under, to vote to send a fiscally insane liberal like David Cicilline to Congress...