Elon Musk called it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time,” which would be an accurate assessment if it wasn’t both obvious and a government program. Without the contributions of people working today, there would not be sufficient funding to pay the people on social security today. We’ve known this for decades, as anyone who remembers Al Gore’s cringey “lock box” analogy during a presidential debate.
But social security is not only wildly popular, but a program into which working Americans have paid throughout the work lives. That further reforms are needed, and maybe Gore wasn’t wrong about the “lock box,” is worthy of debate, but not even Trump is bold enough to admit that he wants to see it die. And yet, there’s Chainsaw Musk, busily doing what he does best.
Elon Musk, the multibillionaire overseeing the Trump administration effort to drastically shrink government, has derided the nation’s most popular federal program as a sketchy pyramid scheme while pushing to close offices and eliminate thousands of jobs of those who administer the program.
The initial plan is to cut 7,000 jobs from the Social Security Administration. but the subsequent RIF, reduction in force, could result in a 50% cut in staffing. There is no argument to be made that the staff is too woke, or dedicated to any DEI or green cause that needed to be weeded out of the bureaucracy that runs the program. They don’t do DEI. They just do social security. It’s just cuts for the sake of cuts, without any consideration of whether there are too many people working for SSA or whether the current staff is necessary or social security collapses, unable to do its job.
Musk already claimed that social security checks were going out to millions and millions of dead people, with ages far beyond any living person. Trump doubled down on this claim in his joint address to Congress, even though Musk’s claim had been debunked and it was just a ludicrous lie. There were errors in payouts, but they were less than 1% of the monies paid and were primarily going to overpayments to living people. The whole millions of “dead person” claim was a tearjerker for the MAGA base, which desperately wants to believe that dead people are the bane of America’s existence.
Mr. Trump emphasized that theme in Tuesday night’s address, saying that millions of obviously long-dead beneficiaries remain on the Social Security rolls. But the claim he and Mr. Musk make that benefits still flow to those people has been widely debunked. The agency says that it is a data recording problem, and has reported that just under 90,000 people 99 years or older received Social Security benefits in December — slightly more than the 85,000 Americans over the age of 100 recorded by the Census Bureau.
What will happen when, after offices are closed and staff are fired, the social security administration is no longer capable of doing its job? That would seem the perfect time for Trump to proclaim that as much as he loves social security, its inability to send out beautiful checks proves that it’s time to kill it and privatize retirement savings. You paid in? Touch nuggies. You rely on it? Tougher nuggies. After all, if it fails, it needs to go.
Congressional Republicans respond that Democrats are distorting the Trump administration’s — and their — position on Social Security and that they are simply trying to bolster the finances of the program to guarantee that it won’t run out of money, allowing future generations, like past ones, to get the money they paid in.
“We need to make sure that Social Security is strengthened and saved for the future so that everyone who’s paid in can get it,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Senate Republican.
And randomly cutting staff and closing offices somehow accomplishes this? And if Trump’s professed position is that he won’t tough social security, why spend so much time claiming it’s rife with fraud, especially given that it’s false?
Despite multiple reviews that have found Social Security to be one of the better-run federal programs with a record of never missing payments, Mr. Musk has characterized the program as riddled with fraud and waste.
Navigating social security isn’t always easy, and given its population of older folks, dealing with it on a computer or smartphone isn’t exactly user-friendly. People need to call social security to get questions answered. People need to go to social security offices to address questions or problems. That’s the nature of social security, given the population it serves. But what will happen when no one answers the phone and there’s no office within hundreds of miles?
“Part of that promise means being able to get on the phone with an actual human being without having to wait on hold for an hour or more, visit an in-office person to help you get your benefits without having to jump through hoops or drive hundreds of miles,” Ms. Murray said. “But Trump and Elon are decimating the Social Security Administration and without adequate staff at the agency, there will be people who cannot get their benefits period.”
Republicans, too, understand that their constituents want and need these services.
“I do know that it is a whole lot easier to work your way through Social Security benefits if you’re doing it in person with somebody who is well trained in how the system works,” said Senator Mike Rounds, Republican of South Dakota. “Trying to do any of that stuff online is much more difficult.”
So what then will be accomplished by Musk cutting staff and closing offices without regard to their need? If the goal is to finally bring social security to its knees, to fail Americans who paid into it their entire working lives only to find it no longer there when they need it, this would be the way to do it. And if it fails, well, wouldn’t that be the time to finally kill social security?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You see this is the kind of argument that seriously advances iopposition to the administration’s frontal onslaught to necessary federal spending. Rational argument. Not stupid hand signs and disruptive outbursts during the State of the Union address. Let him keep talking and talking, and then in following days, calmly and rationally explain why his policy choices are wrong and hurt people. Senator John Fetterman is right, the Democrats have become the arak arm that always goes off. It’s annoying and you stop paying attention.
This is not sustainable. If each policy decision requires a blog post to properly debunk, our gracious host can only keep up if there’s only one (or two) policy decisions a day, and they definitely are emitted more frequently than that. Our president has proven he’s not interested in rational argument with his advisors, the Democrats, or even his own party; all trying to engage at that level will do is leave unchallenged the vast majority of injuries while attempting to challenge just one “properly”. At least with the current system there’s on average one indignant screech per injury.
Trump is too … Trumpy, we’ll say … to have that as a goal, and Musk is just doing his “move fast and break things” thing, which is atrocious when the thing getting broken is government services. But there are several conservative organizations — the Heritage Foundation at the very least — who have that as an explicit goal. For some it’s about erasing everything the opposite party holds dear, for others it’s about forcing Americans to become dependent on religion or philanthropy and become bound by those strings, but in either case the goal is to destroy the government as a service organization. The way to do that for programs too popular to attack directly is to strangle (appropriations) or mangle (workforce) them into ineffectiveness and then euthanize them. Bonus points for finding the two perfect patsies to do so.
There are stories today that Musk met with “Republican Lawmakers” and got an earful about the Power of the Purse and the role of Congress. Said lawmakers are freshly back from their districts where they were browbeaten by constituents. I think it’s not so necessary that the argument be rational, but that it comes from people whose support you need.
Not everyone in MAGA-land is a billionaire or an oligarch like Musk. Trying to destroy Social Security from within, as Musk is trying to do, by firing people and closing office making it harder to apply for/receive benefits is a smokescreen.
Every MAGA supporter who currently relies on these benefits should be enraged by this break of Congress’ fiduciary responsibilities to oversee the SSA and shield it from this pseudo-government DOGE. Relying on a man who will NEVER concern himself with applying for or receiving these benefits and who is openly attempting orchestrate the failure of Social Security by his Ponzi-scheme remarks is the height of congressional entropy and should be called to task by the voters by written outrage to their Representative.
Pseudo-President Musk and his band of twenty-something investigators need to be reigned in: does Congress have the guts to take back its Constitutional authority?
Not evident so far!
This seems like an own goal. If they mess up Social Security, large numbers of voters will be pissed and this is the kind of issue that could turn the next election. Why don’t they go after the massive fraud and waste at the DOD instead? Probably because DOD contractors have better lobbyists than SSN recipients.
I can assure you we do not.
Just got off a call with my COTR. He was having justify to his management why we were needed, what unique skills we bring to the table.
Two items. As someone said here, people(MAGA) should be enraged by all of this; Congress shirking it duties etc. they will be if their money ( they paid in) is threatened directly.
Second iis vulgar the right word to describe someone that had taken huge U.S. government subsidies now in charge of fiscal “ waste”
Two observations.
One. Social Security is indeed technically a Ponzi Scheme. Just not an illegal one. The Government says so. Nonetheless, in the not-so-distant future, the benefits owed will exceed the monies available & people will not receive their expected payments. Congress will need to change the law. Which they will undoubtedly do. Or so I would bet.
Two. Social Security, for the vast majority of people born after WWII, is a bad to terrible retirement plan. Although it was sold to the public as one, its actual purpose was a welfare program for the elderly poor (who were grandfathered in). A better vehicle would have been something like a modern 401K where you could invest in a variety of assets & keep ownership of your contributions.
As an example, if I had invested my SS taxes into the S&P500 each year through my working life I would have something north of $9 million in my account as of 2024. This would give me roughly a $55K/month annuity for life if that was what I wanted, or alternatively, I could just withdraw what I needed each year & leave the balance to my heirs upon death. Far superior to the pittance SS pays.
[Ed. Note: If you invested in AAPL or NVDA, you would be far wealthier. If you invested in Enron, not so much. Therein lies the problem. Not every investment turns out so well.]
A little understood mathematical fact is that in the short term, in toto, stock market gains and losses equal out. In the long term, losses exceed gains, because all companies go out of business eventually. This is the problem with 401k’s for everyone. Some people, half actually, call them unlucky or stupid; will end up with less than they put in. The other half, call them lucky or smart, will have more than they put in. (Why do the indexes always go up over the long haul, you may ask? Because they prune out the dead wood, every so often.) When you have a Bismarckian system, a la social security, to provide a minimum pension for the unlucky and the stupid; then such systems depend on an ever growing population of workers to fund them. To wit, they depend on lawmakers not promising benefits which exceed the contributions of said workers. Social security, because the work force is not growing fast enough, and the benefits are overpromised, is unsound, no matter what Trump does to it.
The greatest generation, the silent generation, and the boomers rode the social security tidal wave. They were the first and last American generations to have idle retirements. The vast majority of Gen X’ers and subsequent gens will be working through their retirements.
If Social Security should morph into Social Insecurity, can Social Unrest be far behind? “There are more of us than there are of them.” The title of a catchy song out there. Where is Howl when we kneed him?
We think Bob Dylan might be able to solve this solvency problem. Anyhow, in the long run, we’re all dead. Not my problem Mon! Just wish we had not taken SS early!
This administration is messing with the wrong people. Cranky old folks (me) and veterans (again me). Cranky old people don’t care about what other people think and veterans are the ones who actually know how to take a hill.
A victim of a Ponzi scheme is not aware of the fact that no investment exists. Social Security is pay-as-you-go, but everyone should be aware of this. This is one way that it differs from a Ponzi scheme, as some online commentary has discussed. A rational debate about the strengths and weaknesses of social security is not well served by inflammatory and imprecise language.
Except you can’t opt out of Social Security so the fact that you KNOW anything is of no use.
At least a Ponzi scheme you have the possibility of not falling for it.