SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ronald reagan
Social Security Advantage: Trump and Musk’s Evil Plan to Privatize Our Safety Net
The goal is to make interacting with Social Security such a difficult and painful process that retired Americans will get angry with the government and begin to listen to Republicans and Wall Street bankers who tell us they should run the system.
Mar 06, 2025
Tuesday night, U.S. President Donald Trump stood before the nation and, with the full backing of billionaires like Elon Musk, laid the groundwork for the biggest heist in American history—the rapid, systematic destruction of Social Security, disguised as “reform.”
We saw the formal announcement of it during Trump’s State of the Union address, and the DOGE announcement earlier in the week that 7,000 employees at Social Security are to be immediately laid off—with as many as half of all Social Security employees (an additional 30,000 people)—soon to be on the chopping block.
Republicans and their morbidly rich donors have hated Social Security ever since it was first created in 1935. They’ve called it everything from communism to socialism to a Ponzi scheme.
It took Bush almost three years to convince Congress to start the process of privatizing and ultimately destroying Medicare. Having learned from that process, odds are Trump will try to privatize Social Security within the year.
In fact, it has been the most successful anti-poverty program in the history of America, one now emulated by virtually every democracy in the world.
But the right-wing billionaires hate it for several reasons.
The first and most important reason is that it demonstrates that government can actually work for people and society: That then provides credibility for other government programs that billionaires hate even more, like regulating their pollution, breaking up their monopolies, making their social media platforms less toxic, and preventing them from ripping off average American consumers.
Thus, to get political support for gutting regulatory agencies that keep billionaires and their companies from robbing, deceiving, and poisoning us, they must first convince Americans that government is stupid, clumsy, and essentially evil.
Former President Ronald Reagan began that process when he claimed that government was not the solution to our problems but was, in fact, the cause of our problems. It was a lie then and is a lie now, but the billionaire-owned media loved it and it’s been repeated hundreds of millions of times.
Billionaires also know that for Social Security to survive and prosper, morbidly rich people will eventually have to pay the same percentage of their income into it as bus drivers, carpenters, and people who work at McDonald’s.
Right now, people earning over $176,100 pay absolutely nothing into Social Security once that amount has been covered. To make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years, and even give a small raise to everybody on it, the simple fix is for the rich to just start paying Social Security income on all of their income, rather than only the first $176,100.
The entire solvency and health of Social Security could be cured permanently, in other words, if we simply did away with the “billionaire loophole” in the Social Security tax.
But the idea of having to pay a tax on all their income so that middle class and low income people can retire comfortably fills America’s billionaires with dread and disgust. So much so that not one single Republican publicly supports the idea.
How dare Americans have the temerity, they argue, to demand morbidly rich people help support the existence of an American middle class or help keep orphans and severely disabled people from being thrown out on the streets!
Which is why Elon Musk and his teenage hackers are attacking the Social Security Administration and its employees with such gusto.
By firing thousands of employees, their evil plan is to make interacting with Social Security such a difficult and painful process—involving months to make an appointment and hours or even days just to get someone on the telephone—that retired Americans will get angry with the government and begin to listen to Republicans and Wall Street bankers who tell us they should run the system.
(This won’t be limited to Social Security, by the way; as you’re reading these words Trump and Musk are planning to slash 80,000 employees from the Veterans Administration, with a scheme to dump those who served in our military into our private, for-profit hospital and health insurance systems.)
The next step will be to roll out the Social Security version of Medicare Advantage, the privatized version of Medicare that former President George W. Bush created in 2003. That scam makes hundreds of billions of dollars in profits for giant insurance companies, who then kick some of that profit back to Republican politicians as campaign donations and luxury trips to international resorts.
Advantage programs are notorious for screwing people when they get sick, and for ripping off our government to the tune of billions every year. But every effort at reforming Medicare or stopping the Medicare Advantage providers from denying us care and stealing from our government has been successfully blocked by bought-off Republicans in Congress.
Once Republicans have damaged the staffing of the Social Security Administration so badly that people are screaming about the difficult time they’re having signing up, solving problems or errors, or even getting their checks, right-wing media will begin to promote—with help from GOP politicians and the billionaire Murdoch family’s Fox “News”—people opting out of Social Security and going with a private option that resembles private 401(k)s.
Rumor has it they’ll call it “Social Security Advantage” and, like Medicare Advantage, which is administered for massive profits by the insurance giants, it will be run by giant, trillion-dollar banks out of New York.
While big insurance companies have probably made something close to a trillion dollars in profits out of our tax dollars from Medicare Advantage since George W. Bush rolled out the program, Social Security Advantage could make that profit level look like chump change for the big banks.
And, as an added bonus, billionaires and right-wing media will get to point out how hard it is to deal with the now-crippled Social Security administration and argue that it’s time to relieve them, too, of the regulatory burdens of “big government”: Gut or even kill off the regulatory agencies and make their yachts and private jets even more tax deductible than they already are.
This is why Donald Trump repeated Elon Musk’s lies about 200 year-old people getting Social Security checks and the system being riddled with fraud and waste. In fact, Social Security is one of the most secure and fraud-free programs in American history.
But Tuesday night was just the opening salvo. It took Bush almost three years to convince Congress to start the process of privatizing and ultimately destroying Medicare.
Having learned from that process, odds are Trump will try to privatize Social Security within the year.
And he may well get away with it, unless we can wake up enough people to this coming scam and put enough political pressure—particularly on Republicans—to prevent it from happening.
Tag, you’re it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Elon Musk and the Libertarians Are Lying to You
The U.S. government is too big. It's too small. For decades, American political discourse has been dominated by the idea that "big government" is a problem. But this fundamental assumption is wrong.
Mar 01, 2025
They’re lying to us again. The American government isn’t too big or too bloated: it’s too small. And the result of it being too small is a steady erosion of Americans’ freedom over the past forty-four years.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his March, 1933 inaugural address:
“A necessitous man is not a free man.”
And here's what that means:
- If you or your children are sick but afraid to go to the hospital because you know the bills will leave you broke and homeless, you’re not free.
- If you need to go to college or trade school to get a better life but can’t afford it, you’re not free.
- If you’re hungry and can’t buy food for your family, you’re not free.
- If you can’t afford housing and have to live in a tent on the street or constantly one step ahead of eviction, you’re not free.
- If you’re afraid every day that your child may not come home from school because Republicans have saturated the nation with deadly weapons, you’re not free.
- If you’re old and broken but still having to work because you can’t live on Social Security, you’re not free.
- If your bank and insurance company are ripping you off and you have no recourse, you’re not free.
- If your voice and vote are drowned out because billionaires, AIPAC, and giant corporations are pouring cash into elections, you’re not free.
- If your boss refuses to let you and your fellow workers unionize and punishes you for demanding better wages, working conditions, and benefits you’re not free.
These are all things, including safety from gun violence, that are traditionally provided by “big government.” And the governments of most every other advanced democracy in the world do provide these things to their people.
But not America, because our government is too small.
Today’s U.S. government is simply too small relative to GDP to provide the level of public services that other advanced democracies offer their citizens.
And it’s been shrinking steadily ever since the Reagan Revolution took an axe to federal programs to pay for his tax cuts for billionaires. The year the Gipper was inaugurated, federal workers made up 2.6% of the total U.S. workforce; today’s they’re 0.87% of all American workers.
Too small.
Our population has grown steadily, while — as a result of repeated Republican austerity cuts to the federal workforce over four GOP administrations — the number of people who keep us safe and guarantee a middle class lifestyle has shrunk.
- That’s why it takes forever to get ahold of anybody at Social Security, the IRS, or Medicare to answer a question or help out.
- It’s why it’s mind-mindbogglingly difficult to report to the feds that your bank is trying to rip you off.
- It’s why polluters skate while Americans in cancer alleys and toxic dump areas die.
- It’s why we have tent cities along our streets and highways.
- It’s why drug and insurance companies rip us off daily.
- It’s why employers like Bezos, Trump, and Musk get away with denying their workers union representation.
The simple reality is that the only way to have a strong, vibrant middle class is to have a strong, activist federal government. And without a strong, vibrant middle class you don’t have a free nation.
For decades, American political discourse has been dominated by the idea that “big government” is a problem. From Ronald Reagan’s famous quip that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem” to today’s Musk- and GOP-led efforts to slash government spending, Americans have been conditioned by the rightwing media machine to view a larger government as an inherent threat to liberty and prosperity.
But this fundamental assumption is wrong. If we’re truly committed to America being the “land of opportunity” with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at its core, the U.S. government is far too small.
Comparing the United States to other wealthy nations, particularly European and Scandinavian countries, reveals a stark contrast in how governments serve their citizens.
Those nations enjoy a higher quality of life, better health outcomes, lower poverty rates, and more economic security — because their governments do more. They provide universal healthcare, generous paid family leave, free or low-cost higher education, and strong worker protections.
And contrary to the uniquely American (and now Argentinian) conservative argument that big government means less freedom, these policies actually increase individual freedom, allowing people to live healthier, more secure, and more fulfilling lives.
A good measure of a government’s size is its spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); this metric lets us to compare how much a nation invests in public services relative to the size of its economy.
According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. government spends about 37% of GDP on public expenditures, including Social Security, Medicare, defense, and other services. In contrast, European nations typically spend between 45% and 55% of GDP.
Scandinavian countries — Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland — allocate an even larger portion of their GDP to public services, often well exceeding 55%. Their governments play an active role in ensuring citizens have access to high-quality healthcare, education, housing assistance, childcare, and more. In these nations, individuals do not have to worry about medical bankruptcy, crushing student debt, housing, or lack of parental leave.
Greedy billionaire “conservatives” and their paid media shills, their Republican politicians, and their think tanks argue that “smaller government leads to more freedom.” It’s complete bullshit (unless you’re a billionaire), and needs to be called out every time they try pushing it on us.
In reality, the Republican model of small government restricts the freedom of ordinary people by tying necessities such as healthcare, education, and retirement security to personal wealth.
In today’s post-Reagan America, you’re only free if you’re rich.
By contrast, European- and Canadian-style social democracy increases the freedom of working class people by ensuring that their basic human needs are met, allowing citizens to pursue careers, start families, and enjoy life without constant economic anxiety.
Take healthcare as an example. The U.S. is the only wealthy country in the world that does not provide universal healthcare. As a result, Americans live in constant fear of medical bills. A single illness can lead to bankruptcy, forcing families to make impossible choices between healthcare and basic necessities.
How the hell does that help create or expand “freedom”?
In European countries (and Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and Costa Rica), healthcare is a right, not a privilege. No one has to stay in a job they hate just to keep their insurance. No one has to choose between paying rent and buying life-saving medication.
That is real freedom.
In the United States, college tuition has skyrocketed over the last few decades, forcing students into lifelong debt just to get an education. In contrast, European nations — particularly in Scandinavia and Germany — offer free or low-cost higher education, allowing young people to focus on learning rather than worrying about how to pay off loans for decades.
Work-life balance is another major issue. The U.S. has no federally mandated paid parental leave, forcing millions of Americans to return to work almost immediately after childbirth. European countries, by contrast, guarantee generous paid family leave, enabling parents to care for their newborns without financial ruin.
Which system provides more real freedom?
Because the U.S. government is too small relative to GDP, the American middle class is stretched thin in ways that just never happen in other wealthy democracies. Housing costs are skyrocketing, wages have stagnated, and basic services like childcare and elder care are prohibitively expensive.
The result is that millions of Americans live paycheck to paycheck with massive debt, with little opportunity to build wealth or even achieve basic economic stability.
Consider retirement security. Social Security is one of the most effective and popular government programs in American history, yet Republicans consistently push to cut or privatize it and Musk’s teenagers are working hard to find ways to cut it even further.
Meanwhile, pensions have all but disappeared in the private sector, leaving most workers dependent on 401(k)s, which are subject to the volatility of the stock market. In contrast, European nations provide generous public pensions — their equivalent of Social Security — that ensure seniors can retire with dignity and without fear of poverty.
Opponents of “Big Government” often point to higher taxes in Europe as a reason to reject their model. And, yes, taxes are higher in those countries (particularly on the rich) — but in return, citizens receive significant benefits that eliminate major out-of-pocket expenses and expand their personal freedom.
When those costs are factored in along with billionaire tax-avoidance schemes and loopholes, middle-class Americans pay more taxes in total than Europeans, but receive far fewer benefits.
And Scandinavian citizens are consistently ranked among the happiest in the world, according to the World Happiness Report because they experience significantly lower levels of economic stress. They don’t have to worry about medical bills, student debt, or retirement insecurity. Instead of spending their lives with financial anxiety, they can focus on personal fulfillment, family, and community.
Years ago, I was up late one night in an Asian city (Taipei, as I recall) watching the financial news on a hotel TV. A young American host was interviewing a very wealthy German businessman at a conference in Singapore.
Amidst questions about the business climate and the conference, the host asked the German businessman what tax rate he was “suffering under” in his home country. As I recall, the businessman said, “A bit over 60 percent, when everything is included.”
“How can you handle that?” asked the host, incredulous.
The German shrugged his shoulders and moved the conversation to another topic.
A few minutes later, the American reporter, still all wound up by the tax question, again asked the businessman how he could possibly live in a country with such a high tax rate on very wealthy and successful people. Again, the German deferred and changed the subject.
The reporter went for a third try. “Why don’t you lead a revolt against those high taxes?” he asked, his tone implying the businessman was badly in need of some good old American rebellion-making.
The German businessman paused for a long moment and then leaned forward, putting his elbows on his knees, his clasped hands in front of him pointing at the reporter as if in prayer.
He stared at the young man for another long moment and then, in the tone of voice an adult uses to correct a spoiled child, said simply, “I don’t want to be a rich man in a poor country.”
There are a few wealthy Americans who understand this. Like the Patriotic Millionaires group, they embrace an opportunity to help our country, often via Democratic politicians.
But the billionaires who fund the Republican Party and own right-wing media believe it’s perfectly fine to rip the moral and political guts out of their own nation, condemn its future to severe weather, and turn its people against each other if it helps them fill their money bins.
For too long, the economic and political debate in the U.S. has been framed around whether government is “too big” or “too small.” But the real question should be: Does our government serve the needs of our people?
The evidence suggests that it does not. Today’s U.S. government is simply too small relative to GDP to provide the level of public services that other advanced democracies offer their citizens. And Trump and Musk are dedicated to cutting it even further so they can fund more tax cuts and business subsidies for billionaires.
To change this, we must rethink our priorities. Expanding government programs in healthcare, education, paid leave, childcare, and retirement security would not make us “less free” — they would actually increase our freedom. They would relieve financial burdens, provide greater security, and allow more Americans to pursue their dreams without constant economic anxiety.
The Scandinavian and European models prove that a strong, active government can create a fairer, freer, and happier society. The U.S. hardly lacks the resources to build such a system: we simply lack the political will to tax the rich and turn that into a foundation for a vibrant middle class.
Once we’re past this current crisis of democracy (fingers crossed), we need to focus on changing that. It’s time to recognize that our government should not just be big enough to fund the military and bail out massive banks; it should be big enough to ensure that every American can live a life of dignity, security, and opportunity.
As I lay out in The Hidden History of the American Dream, that’s the real American dream, and it’s one worth fighting for.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Second Coming Is Worse Than the First
The most significant difference between Trump 2017 and Trump 2025 is that he now has a more clearly defined agenda and is more prepared to impose it.
Feb 24, 2025
Among the significant differences between Donald Trump’s first term as president in 2017 and his return to the White House in 2025, this time around he appears more in control and better prepared. And despite the drastic measures of his first weeks in office, the opposition he is facing appears more subdued and less focused.
Though he won the presidency in 2016, Trump was not yet master of the Republican Party. The party’s “old guard” found him not conservative enough, a personal embarrassment, and too erratic to lead the Grand Old Party. His Make America Great Again movement, though substantial, had not yet demonstrated its capacity for mobilizing its ranks to sway members of Congress to fully embrace Trump and his agenda.
That has clearly changed. Trump’s control of the Republican Party, its apparatus, and congressional cohort are complete. His opponents have been silenced or faded into the background.
In the end, it will most likely be Mr. Trump’s own hubris and the contradictions between his promises and his policies that will prove to be his undoing.
In 2017, to bolster confidence in his administration, he brought on board a number of older, respected individuals to fill sensitive posts in the White House and Cabinet. Some of them, at times, served as a check on his penchant for unpredictable behavior.
The cast of characters in the 2025 Trump White House and Cabinet are themselves more unpredictable and less qualified to serve in their assigned posts than the 2017 appointees. The number one qualification is being a longtime Trump devotee—or having made amends and groveled sufficiently for any past opposition.
The most significant difference between Trump 2017 and Trump 2025 is that he now has a more clearly defined agenda and is more prepared to impose it.
When Ronald Reagan won in 1980, he arrived in Washington with a well-developed conservative game plan designed by the Heritage Foundation to transform the federal government according to conservative principles. In 2017, Trump entered the Oval Office with an array of ideas, complaints, and actions to be taken, but without a plan to implement them.
In 2025, many of the ideas, complaints, and actions are the same as 2017, but they are now bigger, bolder, more thought through and backed up by extensive plans for implementation developed by the very same Heritage Foundation that helped guide Reagan’s time in the White House. And just as Heritage helped populate Reagan’s administration with hundreds of staff in agencies to help implement the conservative agenda, this year Heritage boasts of having tens of thousands of vetted individuals waiting to serve in the new Trump administration.
President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, his “hatchet-man,” are running roughshod over the federal government’s institutions and workforce. Entire agencies have been shuttered, and tens of thousands of workers have been fired or placed on indefinite leave, setting the stage for the kind of Trump takeover in 2025 that he was unable to accomplish in 2017.
There’s one final difference to be noted. Donald Trump’s election in 2016 was greeted by an eruption of mass protests. They came in waves with advocates for women’s rights and immigrants, and those calling for more restrictive gun laws and an end to police brutality each in turn making their mark. While there have been protests since last November’s election, they’ve lacked the numbers and emotional intensity of those in Trump’s first term.
Much has been written about the threat posed by Trump 2025 for democracy and the impact of the programs and staff that have been terminated by the Trump-Musk wrecking-ball approach to reform. Much less attention has been given to the public’s reaction to these developments. Opinion polls are one way to measure that—a recent Washington Post poll indicates that the American electorate is as divided as ever. 45% approve of Trump’s job performance as opposed to 53% who disapprove. What also comes through in this poll is that there are significantly more respondents who say they “strongly disapprove” than those who say they “strongly approve” of Trump’s job in office.
Given this, why the lack of intensity in the public’s reaction to White House’s actions? One reason may be that the Trump-Musk “shock and awe” assaults on so many targets in just a few days have left the opposition disoriented and demoralized. Add to this the lack of Democratic leadership. In a recent discussion, an elected Democratic leader outlined his party’s approach as simply to keep proposing amendments to Trump’s budget bills to demonstrate how the GOP wants tax cuts for the rich while placing greater burdens on the working class. This, he said, would drag Trump’s favorable ratings down, enabling Democrats to win back the Congress in 2026. This isn’t leadership. It’s crass opportunism and yet another reason why no coherent or effective opposition has been mounted to President Trump’s efforts to take excessive power in his second term.
In the end, it will most likely be Mr. Trump’s own hubris and the contradictions between his promises and his policies that will prove to be his undoing. Just one example: Polls show that while his supporters love his bold actions, what they most want to see is the drop in prices and inflation that Trump promised during the campaign. But his use of tariffs and the mass deportation of migrants (who perform essential tasks in the agricultural and service sectors) will inevitably cause prices to rise, without the results that Trump voters were promised. If the improvements in the daily lives of his supporters don’t come, Trump2 could end worse than Trump1.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular