When former President Jimmy Carter died on Sunday, remembrances and tributes poured in, mostly related to his accomplishments after leaving the White House. While his decades after the presidency were defined by numerous humanitarian efforts, including massive advancements for Habitat for Humanity, most historians consider his actual presidency a failure. This is largely due to his botched handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and a series of economic issues that sullied his four years in office.

What did the commentators say?
Conventional history "holds that Jimmy Carter was a failure as a president, redeemed only by his philanthropy" in his post-presidential years, but this is "palpably wrong," Stuart E. Eizenstat, Carter's chief domestic policy adviser, said at The Washington Post. Rather, what Carter achieved was "more extensive and longer lasting than those of almost all modern presidents." Carter also "helped restore trust in the presidency through ethics reforms more relevant today than ever before" in the years after the Watergate scandal.

So while Carter left office with disastrously low approval ratings, he "should also be remembered as a consequential president whose single term produced lasting accomplishments," said Eizenstat at The Wall Street Journal. His "success rate at passing major legislation was among the highest of modern presidents," and he "respected the institutions of government and the free press, no matter how brutal its coverage." 

This is why viewing Carter as a failed president "doesn't bear scrutiny," said Jonathan Alter at the Post. "He was not a weak president." While Carter dealt with several crises during his administration, they were "largely beyond his control." And while Carter is blamed for the poor American economy during his tenure, this "resulted largely from disruptions in Middle Eastern oil supplies."

Carter will "face history's judgment" in determining whether his presidency "resulted from sheer misfortune or Carter's miscalculations," said Barbara A. Perry at Newsweek. But judicially, his "commitment to egalitarianism on matters of race and gender manifested itself in his approach to federal court nominations," and his efforts gave him an "influential role in shaping the national judiciary."

What next?
President Joe Biden will deliver a eulogy at Carter's memorial service on Jan. 9, reportedly at the behest of Carter. There was a "unique relationship Biden developed with Carter early on in his political career," said NPR.

America's population is getting older, which means more people than ever are collecting Social Security benefits. Some politicians say it's time to consider changing how the system works.

What happens in 2035?
The number of retired Americans will rise from 56 million in 2024 to 78 million in 2035, so "more people will be taking money out of the Social Security system" while fewer are paying taxes into the system, said Cameron Huddleston at GOBankingRates. This shift does not indicate the system will run out of money right away. Instead, payroll taxes will continue to cover about 78% of benefits, and payments will be reduced accordingly. The problem? "That kind of benefit cuts would represent a big financial hit" for retirees.

Benefit cuts in 2035 would "increase the number of Social Security beneficiaries who live in poverty by more than 50%," said Richard W. Johnson and Karen E. Smith at The Urban Institute think tank. Black and Hispanic retirees for whom Social Security provides a larger share of retirement income would be particularly hard-hit. 

How can it be fixed?
Democrats and Republicans are divided on how best to fix the program, said CBS News. Some Republicans have proposed raising the retirement age, "effectively cutting benefits for millions of current workers." Democrats would prefer to increase the current cap on Social Security taxes. Right now, "individual income over $168,600 is exempt" from the tax. 

Another option? An "emergency injection of general government revenue," said Reuters. That is, supplement the Social Security system with non-Social Security tax sources. For a program that has always been self-financed, that would be a "profound turning point."

Any fix is bound to run into political obstacles. Nearly 80% of Americans are opposed to raising the Social Security retirement age from 67 to 70, said Brian J. O'Connor at SmartAsset. The White House and Congress are hesitant to anger such a sizable majority. "Most Americans are fiercely protective when it comes to their retirement benefits."