The Social Security program is facing a well-publicized cash flow issue in the coming years, and actually will be paying out more this year than it is taking in, well ahead of the 15-20 years most thought it would take for this to occur.

With current payers to the system doubtful that any monies they submit will be returned, the Social Security program seems to be one destined for failure due to elected officials' unwillingness to make important decisions at the expense of their re-election campaigns.

Fortunately, while our leaders cower from the thought of making these tough decisions, non-elected officials with backgrounds in the subject (the people we'd be much better off with running the country) have devised several methods that, if implemented, would save Social Security for at least the generations now paying into it.

Of course, they are recommending the hard choices: raising the age of eligibility (if it had been adjusted for increases in life span, as it should have been, you would need to be 87 to receive benefits today), increasing the percentages paid into the program from 6.2% to 7.3% for both employees and employers, and of course reducing cost of living increases to the program 1% yearly.

Since our elected officials will most likely be dead from old age or otherwise out of office by the time this becomes a crisis, we would not encourage any of our readers to hold their breath, as they, too, may find themselves expired from asphyxiation long before Washington lifts a finger.

As Washington is purely reactive instead of being proactive, we predict that this will become a crisis with no solution before our "leaders" find it necessary to hold meetings and investigations as to why we ended up where we did, at which point it will be an exercise in futility.

We ask our members and readers to think carefully about whom they elect to office and if the candidates can't promise to what is needed for America over what is needed for their next term, then these are not the people we want in charge.