If you can see a car crash coming from a mile away, and yet you don’t do anything to stop or divert your car from the wreck, don't you deserve blame?

That’s the situation Congress faces with Social Security, and yet there’s been little talk about pumping the fiscal brakes.

For the first time since 1982, Social Security will run a deficit this year . It will take in less in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits. As a result, the program’s on-paper trust fund will be exhausted in a mere 16 years, at which point benefits will automatically be cut by about 20 percent.

If nothing is done, then a 51-year-old today will never receive his full benefits, even if he waits until the full retirement age. A 22-year-old who just graduated college stands to lose about $180,000 in lifetime benefits, unless Congress reforms the program.

None of this is new. This crisis has long been foreseen. The annual report released in March 2008 predicted the combined Social Security trust funds would run a deficit in 2017 and would be exhausted in 2041.

Both parties are to blame for inaction. But as the party (supposedly) of fiscal responsibility, Republicans in the 115th Congress will bear unique blame if they squander the opportunity to reform Social Security while they have unified control of the government. If they fail to act, they shouldn't be surprised when Democrats step in years from now with their so-called reform — a massive tax hike on current earners.

President Trump has promised not to cut benefits. He is right that current retirees shouldn't have any changes forced on them abruptly.

But there are still reasonable reforms to be made for those who will collect benefits years from now.

As we've advocated in the past , reforms could include a system of private investment accounts with a government-guaranteed minimum benefit. This would empower families to save and accumulate wealth, all with more certainty than today’s crisis-ridden Social Security system offers. Democrats may be more open to a flat-rate benefit that keeps seniors out of poverty but pays out less to the wealthy.

A law passed now could set plans in motion to gradually increase the retirement age in a decade or so. Remember that progressive hero President Franklin D. Roosevelt never meant for Social Security to be part of our long-term retirement plans — it was only meant to serve as a lifeline for the poorest elderly people. As he said upon signing the Social Security Act in 1935, the aim was to “give some measure of protection to the average citizen ... against poverty-ridden old age.”

In the midst of the Great Depression, millions of elderly persons lived in poverty. Today, the poverty rate for those 65 and older is only 9 percent, compared to 11 percent for adults 19-64. While life expectancy improved by 17 years from 1935 to 2014 , the Social Security retirement age has increased by less than two years.