Biggs and Fichtner took further umbrage with the increasingly common claim among right-wing pundits and lawmakers that Social Security is a glorified Ponzi scheme, while taking pains to compliment the dedication and skill of career SSA staffers — many of whom sacrifice the potential of higher earnings in the public sector to support a vital government program.

“You can see the downsides of their approach in the mass leadership resignations we have seen in just the last two weeks, with some very experienced and dedicated folks departing the organization,” Fichtner said. “They are going from 10 regions down to four, while closing offices and cutting staff. The end result is going to be a more challenging benefits claiming process for Americans, especially for those people who have questions or problems in the process.”

Policy dysfunction

Biggs and Fichtner addressed the prospects for Social Security reform ahead of the projected trust fund insolvency date in the early to mid-2030s, bemoaning Congress’ inability to engage in anything resembling genuine policy debate on this (and most other) topics. They said the recent passage of the Social Security Fairness Act is a case in point.

“That legislation was viewed as a bad idea by true policy experts on both the left and the right,” Biggs said. “The sad truth is that even its many co-sponsors all mostly thought it was a bad idea, with its $200 billion price tag that will accelerate Social Security insolvency. They thought it would never pass and would instead give them some easy political points with key constituencies. Yet, lo and behold, it passed.”

As a result, millions of former long-term government workers who already enjoy a relatively high standard of living in retirement will see their benefits boosted. Yes, some people who had been disproportionally affected by the windfall elimination provision and the program's government pension offset rules will get bigger monthly Social Security checks, but so will many more people who don’t really need them.

A more thoughtful approach would have seen the WEP and GPO formulas carefully reconsidered in a way to deliver higher benefits to those who were unfairly affected and facing hardships in retirement. Instead, Congress took the easy way out and flatly abolished both policies in a piece of simplistic legislation just a few pages long.

Related: Sen. Warren clashes with Dr. Oz, Trump's health agency nominee, over future work

Fichtner and Biggs said they hope for thoughtful reforms that would see the Social Security program return closer to its roots as an old-age and survivors income insurance program. But what they actually expect is a lot different: Congress kicking the can down the road for years and eventually borrowing billions of dollars to plug the program’s big (and growing) financing gap.

“That’s good news for beneficiaries insofar as their benefits aren’t likely to be cut when the trust fund runs dry in the next decade,” Biggs said. “The bad news is that such borrowing, combined with the fact that Congress seems only to be able to borrow to ‘solve' its problems, could eventually topple our nation’s financial stability and lead to a fiscal crisis bigger than what many people would even imagine.”

More show than substance

Asked by a conference attendee why Congress can’t seem to move on Social Security despite the huge importance of the program and the clearness of the pending funding crisis, Biggs said it was a symptom of the nation’s larger governance problems.

“No, members of Congress aren’t stupid, but it’s clear to anyone who watches closely that serious policymaking has kind of gone away — certainly with respect to Social Security,” Biggs said. “When I started doing congressional testimony several decades ago, you had a real balance. The committees of jurisdiction would bring in legitimate policy experts on both sides of the aisle, and they were asking real questions and listening to the answers.”

That has changed, according to Biggs, and it’s been the fault of both political parties as they have traded control over the last decade. The modus operandi today is “more show than substance.”

“The last time I was on Capitol Hill to talk about Social Security, the lineup included myself as a policy expert, and then six advocates lobbying for one specific position or another,” Biggs said. “Advocacy is important, but advocates are not necessarily policy experts. They are speaking to the needs of just one constituency and trying to make a case on their behalf. As a result, the whole process is much more of a show than a real policy debate.”

Sadly, Biggs and Fichtner agreed, this approach to policymaking seems much likelier to intensify in the years ahead rather than return to the norms of the past.

Pictured: John Manganaro