Editorial: Finally inching forward on the entitlement dilemma

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Jul 30, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Members of Congress for years have metaphorically run for the hills when confronted with the nation’s looming entitlement crisis, opting for inertia over reforms that might be politically risky. But with the Social Security trust fund now set to run dry in just six years — and Medicare not far behind — further inaction will soon be an untenable option.

To that end, eight senators — Democrats Dick Durbin (Illinois), Tim Kaine (Virginia) and Chris Coons (Delaware), and Republicans Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) Thom Tillis (North Carolina), Alan Armstrong (Oklahoma) and John Cornyn (Texas) with independent Angus King (Maine) — now propose the Promise Act. It is intended to create a mechanism to force Congress to do its job regarding Social Security.

The proposal directs the Social Security Advisory Board to hold a series of public meetings intended to gather input about possible reforms needed to fortify the program for decades into the future. The board would then concoct legislation that both the House and the Senate would have to consider by law. Passage would require 60 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House.

The act includes safeguards to ensure that any proposal — which would be limited to addressing outlays, revenues or financing — does not get derailed by procedural maneuvers in either chamber.

The purpose is to get members on the record one way or the other as seniors face threatened benefit cuts if the structural deficiencies of Social Security aren’t addressed. It also “mandates a decennial review of solvency, triggering the same procedure if future shortfalls are projected, ensuring that future issues with Social Security solvency are addressed ahead of time and providing additional security for future recipients of the program,” according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Critics will no doubt point out that the act simply outsources responsibility for creating necessary legislation. They’re correct. But there are precedents for this, particularly when the potential political ramifications of reform have paralyzed Congress. The Base Realignment and Closure Commission was one such entity that shielded members from the hot-button issue of shutting down obsolete military installations. Others have proposed a similar approach to dealing with the national debt.

It would be nice if members of Congress did their jobs rather than farm out politically challenging issues in an effort to insulate themselves from potential repercussions. History, however, has shown that — particularly in this hyper-partisan age — this is wishful thinking. If the Promise Act can push the nation closer to finding a solution to Social Security’s funding dilemma, it’s better than the alternative of doing nothing at all.