For years, it’s been a common question voters ask candidates for congressional seats: What’s your plan to fix Social Security?

The demand for answers in the form of actual legislative proposals has take on greater urgency now that Social Security’s primary retirement trust fund is projected to become depleted in 2032.

Once the reserve is exhausted – and Social Security is relegated to a “pay as you go” system – it will only be able to pay an estimated 78% of scheduled benefits, meaning retirees could face an automatic 22% cut in their monthly payments if Congress takes no action.

That’s the scary part. We’re depending on a dysfunctional Congress taking action to solve a solvable problem. But it needs to happen sooner than later to alter the trajectory of the trust fund’s depletion date.

Still, much is being made of the political opportunity to hold politicians’ feet to the fire.

Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, wrote in a statement November’s midterm elections will have an impact on who is in the Senate, where lawmakers have six-year terms, in the lead-up to the deadline.

“It’s important to recognize that the Senators we elect this year will be in office when Social Security becomes unable to pay out full benefits, so this must be a central campaign issue,” he wrote.

It should be a central campaign issue, but voters can do better than ask for any single candidate’s policy preferences. They can demand a commitment to do something.

If the House of Representatives can force a vote on the release of the Epstein files, it can force a discussion on the future of Social Security. Voters should be asking candidates if they’re willing to make it a priority in 2027 even if it’s not part of the administration’s legislative agenda.

Fixing Social Security to avoid projected insolvency requires Congress to either increase revenue or reduce future benefit payouts.

Common proposals include raising the payroll tax cap, increasing the 12.4% tax rate, gradually raising the retirement age and altering inflation adjustments.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recommends a combination of revenue increases and cost-control measures to fix Social Security, primarily focusing on protecting vulnerable retirees while targeting benefits for high earners and gradually adjusting the retirement age.

Sen. Michael Bennet opposes any reductions to Social Security benefits and advocates for long-term solvency by requiring wealthier Americans to contribute more fairly.

Instead of broad benefit cuts, he supports lifting the payroll tax cap and rolling back recent tax cuts to ensure the fund’s reserves remain secure.

That’s as good a starting place as any.

In an op-ed published in the Kansas City Star, Maya MacGuineas, president of the nonpartisan CRFB, distills the options as sudden cuts later or thoughtful reforms now.

“That is why voters should ask their lawmakers – and anyone asking for their vote – a simple question: What is your plan to fix Social Security and Medicare?” she said. “If the answer is vague, evasive or little more than a promise ‘not to touch’ the programs, they should ask the follow-up: The default outcome is across-the-board cuts – are you endorsing that?”

Restoring solvency to Social Security will require navigating difficult tradeoffs. That starts with voters demanding a plan because if Social Security’s trust fund becomes insolvent, no one will be spared.

Guest commentary courtesy of Andy Smith, Opinion editor at the Grand Junction Sentinel.