Somewhere inside the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget this week, an analyst hit “publish” on a paper that should have led the evening news. The finding: No single change to how Washington taxes Social Security benefits will save the program. Reforming benefit taxation could help, the group said, in its July 30 paper on the subject, but only as one piece of a much larger fix.

It has finally become clear that Congress has run out of easy options—and it never had many to begin with.

I was 21 years old when I moved to California in 1990, and even then people told me not to count on Social Security being there when I retired. Thirty-six years later, we are finally running out of road to kick the can down.

The political appeal of telling seniors “no tax on your Social Security” is obvious. But money doesn’t appear from nowhere just because a press release says so.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget paper lays out a menu: Streamline the tangled income thresholds that currently govern benefit taxation, expand the share of benefits subject to tax, build in more progressivity at higher incomes, or scrap the current design entirely and tax benefits more like a private pension. Run the most aggressive combination of these ideas alongside other structural reforms, and the group finds that 90 percent of the 75-year solvency gap could be closed, and insolvency could be pushed out toward 2090. That’s a real result. It also requires actual legislating, not another decade of press conferences.

Which brings me to the fraud question. I’ve spent more than three decades building and defending retirement portfolios for private families, and clients ask me about fraud constantly, usually assuming that Washington can arrest its way out of a trillion-dollar shortfall.

Both figures can be true at once. Blocking bad claims before they go out the door is real money, but real money still isn’t the same thing as a structural fix for a program facing a shortfall measured in the trillions.

To be sure, raising the retirement age lands hardest on people who do physical labor for a living, not on people who sit behind desks, and that objection deserves more than a shrug. I’ve spent years around Marines, EMTs, law enforcement, and construction crews, and a body wears out differently depending on what it does for eight hours a day.

The honest answer is exceptions for physically demanding occupations and a phase-in slow enough that nobody near retirement today gets blindsided. What the objection doesn’t justify is doing nothing. A slow, fair phase-in beats the automatic 17 percent across-the-board cut baked into current law, which falls just as hard on the man who spent 40 years on roofs as on the one who spent 40 years behind a desk.

So what actually works? Start with honesty about trade-offs instead of pretending that there’s a painless option buried in the fine print.

None of this is exciting. None of it fits on a bumper sticker. But I’ve coached enough teenagers through the 300-meter hurdles to know the athletes who win are the ones who plan the whole race, not just the first 100 meters. Congress has been sprinting the first 100 meters of Social Security reform for 40 years and calling it a strategy. The clock on this one doesn’t stop for a photo op.

Six years sounds like a long time until you remember how quickly the past six went.