Romina Boccia and Ivane Nachkebia
When it comes to Social Security, Congress keeps dodging the inevitable—real reform. Instead, we get piecemeal proposals like the Land and Social Security Optimization Act (the LASSO Act), introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (R‑AZ), which attempts to shore up funding by allocating revenues from public land to Social Security. While well-meaning, this proposal is a drop in the bucket and risks making future bailouts the norm.
A Drop in the Bucket
If enacted, the LASSO Act would allocate 10 percent of the annual revenue generated from public lands managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (USFS) to Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. Rep. Gosar claims that if the LASSO Act had been in place for fiscal year 2023, it would have added nearly $2 billion to Social Security, reducing the trust fund’s annual shortfall by 3 percent. However, this calculation ignores that the real annual shortfall was $133.4 billion, double Gosar’s estimate.
This discrepancy arises because Rep. Gosar counts $63 billion of the trust fund’s interest income as part of its revenues—a common mistake due to the complex way the trust fund operates. In reality, this figure represents interest on trust fund assets that exist only on paper. When the Treasury pays interest to the Social Security trust fund, it borrows the money from the public, adding to the federal debt. The trust fund is an intragovernmental accounting mechanism, not a savings depository.
As such, the $2 billion in land revenues would cover just 1.5 percent of the annual gap, barely making a dent in Social Security’s mounting fiscal woes. Moreover, public land revenues are projected to stay roughly the same for 2024 and 2025, while the OASI cash-flow gap is expected to grow significantly (see figure below), further diminishing the significance of these external funds.
Establishing a Precedent for General Fund Bailouts
Beyond being insignificant in addressing Social Security’s funding shortfall, Gosar’s proposal could normalize the practice of relying on general revenue transfers (i.e., funding sources other than dedicated payroll taxes and benefit taxation) to cover program benefits. This paves the way for more taxpayer-funded bailouts once the trust fund runs dry in 2033.
Given chronic federal deficits, relying on general revenue transfers could mean trillions in additional borrowing, as Social Security’s long-term funding gap exceeds $25 trillion. Papering over real Social Security deficits may save politicians from political backlash in the short term by avoiding payroll tax hikes or benefit reductions, but it could exacerbate a fiscal crisis down the road.
Additionally, proposals like the LASSO Act, which seem to have found a “free” revenue source (similar to President Trump’s sovereign wealth fund idea), distract both the public and policymakers from the core systemic issues facing Social Security: an aging population and rising benefit costs. Instead of focusing on band-aid measures that fail to address these underlying challenges, Congress should consider adopting a mechanism that allows for meaningful, structural changes—such as aligning eligibility ages with life expectancy and shifting to price indexing for calculating initial benefits, which would preserve current benefits and slow the growth in future benefits. A nonpartisan expert fiscal commission may just be what the doctor ordered.
Rep. Gosar has championed responsible spending, as seen in his push for greater transparency in emergency expenditures. However, while strengthening Social Security is a worthy goal, the LASSO Act falls short and could do more harm than good. It fails to address the program’s core structural issues and risks delaying real reforms by normalizing general revenue bailouts.
Instead, Congress should consider changes that fix Social Security’s systemic flaws and reduce the program’s unfunded obligations, lessening the tax burden on American workers, and protecting benefits for the most vulnerable seniors.