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
seniors
As Mike Johnson Floats Social Security Cuts, Trustees Report Shows Harm of Trump Policies
“MAGA Mike Johnson won’t show the American people his secret plan to eliminate Social Security because he knows Republican policies are wildly unpopular."
Jun 09, 2026
Social Security's trustees said in their annual report released Tuesday that the New Deal program will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032—a quarter earlier than projected last year—in the absence of congressional action, a finding that advocates said underscores the destructive impact of President Donald Trump's policy agenda and the need to make the rich finally pay their fair share into the system.
“This is the first Social Security trustees report that begins to take Donald Trump’s second term policies into account: A tax bill that largely benefited the wealthy, economy-wrecking tariffs, a needless war with Iran, and hostility to immigrants," said Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works. "All of these have reduced the amount of money going into Social Security, weakening the system’s finances."
The trustees report was released a day after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared in a radio show appearance that "entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and things like Social Security" need to be "adjusted and fixed," which critics say is euphemistic language for benefit cuts, given past GOP proposals such as raising the retirement age.
Johnson said the GOP intends to release a new Social Security plan "next year," without providing any details.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats' campaign arm, immediately pressed Johnson, suggesting he's delaying Republican plans for Social Security and Medicare until after the 2026 midterms to avoid consequences at the ballot box.
“MAGA Mike Johnson won’t show the American people his secret plan to eliminate Social Security because he knows Republican policies are wildly unpopular and will be resoundingly rejected by the American people in November," said Justin Chermol, a DCCC spokesperson.
The new trustees report projects that Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance will be able to pay out full benefits "until the fourth quarter of 2032, one quarter earlier than projected last year."
"At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 78% of total scheduled benefits," the trustees said.
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), stressed that the new projection "does not mean that Social Security is going ‘bankrupt’ or ‘broke.’"
"Nor does the trustees report mean that benefits must be cut to maintain the program’s fiscal health," said Richtman. "It would be grossly unfair to ask beneficiaries on fixed incomes to bear the cost of strengthening Social Security. While conservatives favor benefit cuts (such as raising the retirement age, means testing, or reduced COLAs), we advocate for revenue-side solutions where the wealthy pay their fair share."
Specifically, NCPSSM and other progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers have called for raising the Social Security's payroll tax cap, which currently exempts annual income above $184,500 from the program's dedicated payroll levy.
Richtman said that lifting the payroll tax cap and "subjecting some of high earners’ investment income to Social Security taxes" would keep the program solvent "well beyond the 2030s." He noted that Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to shore up Social Security's finances by taxing the rich, but the bills have gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress.
In a joint statement issued in response to the trustees report, Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said that "instead of joining Democrats to protect and enhance" Medicare and Social Security, "Donald Trump and Republicans are busy sabotaging them."
"After DOGE took a wrecking ball to the Social Security Administration under false pretenses, all Americans got were slashed customer service and their most personal data put at risk—without a penny saved," the Democrats said. "Combined with their sole legislative achievement pricing millions out of coverage and putting Medicare on the chopping block, there is no greater threat to Americans’ wellbeing than Republican governance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Threats to the Post Office Are Threats to Democracy and Affordability
The decision to downgrade postal service standards and eliminate evening collections increases the risk of disenfranchising voters and raising costs for families already struggling to pay their bills.
Mar 19, 2026
For over 250 years, Americans have relied on the United States Postal Service for timely processing of their mail, no matter the conditions. After we dropped it in a box or gave it to a letter carrier, we could count on our mail being postmarked on that date so that our bills and tax returns aren’t late and our election ballots are counted.
Unfortunately, this trust is now increasingly risky—since we can no longer rely on USPS to postmark mail on the day it’s collected.
As part of former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s broader cost-cutting and restructuring plan, the Postal Service has stopped its practice of picking up mail at the end of every day from all post offices. This means your ballot or bill payment could sit there until the following morning or even longer before being postmarked at a huge processing center.
This gap between mail collection and postmarking is particularly concerning for rural residents, for two main reasons.
To maintain public trust, USPS should restore same-day postmarking and do whatever it takes to protect voting rights for all Americans.
First, the decision to eliminate evening collections applies only to post offices located more than 50 miles from a regional processing center. This raises strong concerns about whether a federal agency with an obligation to provide universal service to all Americans is actively discriminating against rural communities.
Second, rural residents rely especially heavily on our public Postal Service for voting and paying bills. During the 2024 general election, USPS delivered more than 99 million ballots to and from voters. The mail-in option makes voting much easier for rural residents who live long distances from their polling place.
Half of rural county polling sites serve an area larger than 62 square miles, while half of urban polling sites serve an area of less than 2 square miles. Vote by mail is particularly important for seniors, who are more likely to have mobility issues that make it difficult to cast their ballots in person. Americans age 65 or older make up about 20% of all rural residents, compared to just 16% of urban residents.
Older Americans are also more likely to drop a check in the mail rather than paying bills online. According to a USPS survey, 18% of households headed by someone 55 or older paid their bills by mail, compared to just 7% of those aged 18 to 34.
A key reason many rural residents use USPS for bill paying: the digital divide. An Institute for Policy Studies analysis of the 15 most rural states found that only one (North Dakota) had a broadband access rate higher than the national average in 2024. More than 20% of the population lacked broadband access in seven of these states (Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Iowa).
The decision to downgrade postal service standards and eliminate evening collections increases the risk of disenfranchising voters and raising costs for families already struggling to pay their bills.
These problems are particularly serious as the nation heads into a tense election season. To maintain public trust, USPS should restore same-day postmarking and do whatever it takes to protect voting rights for all Americans, whether they live in the most remote mountain village or the largest city.
Our democracy depends on a strong public Postal Service.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Making Older Americans Unsafe, and He Doesn't Care
When before has a president been so personally and negatively intrusive in the lives of seniors?
Nov 13, 2025
Aging, like time, ticks on, day by hour by day. Then, suddenly, it’s there, mocking our inability to sweep aside, should we even want to, this iron curtain. For seniors, the concept of time itself differs from that of younger people, because the future is in the everyday.
But aging in a Trumpian world brings fear and destruction as strand by strand of the safety net is plucked away until it’s shredded. And Donald Trump doesn’t care.
Seniors make up an ever larger American demographic that’s being made ever more unsafe in the richest country in the world. Social Security, healthcare, even access to food, not to speak of general well-being are all under threat. Trump doesn’t care.
The President’s Heavy Hand
Social Security is a return on what workers have paid into the federal government over many years. The recent fright about Social Security offices closing or seniors having to prove they’re eligible (or that they even exist) in order to continue receiving what workers 62 and over are owed is not only demeaning and insulting but also saps confidence, threatens well-being, and challenges life in America as we’ve known it. And count on one thing: Trump doesn’t care.
An aging society now under siege should be everyone’s problem since (if we’re lucky) we all get old.
The Social Security Department is run extremely efficiently and had no need for Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and crew remaking it. Less than one penny of every dollar it gets is spent on its administration, while the other 99 cents come back in benefits.
Social Security has been called a crucial guardrail against government change, a rail that, unfortunately, seems to be weakening, month by month, in the second era of Donald Trump amid changes so thoughtless that they take one’s breath away. For example, some Social Security offices are now being closed, ensuring that many elderly or infirm people who are housebound will no longer be able to reach them by phone to register to receive their checks. Yes, cruelty before our very eyes. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) has insisted that we must defend this lifesaving program, which lifts 27 million Americans out of poverty each year.
In recent weeks, President Trump has announced an end to the issuing of the paper Social Security checks that now arrive by mail, rather than being deposited directly into a bank account. Doesn’t he know that it’s the oldest, sickest, and poorest among us who may not have a bank account, or be able to get to a bank, or make the change via computer, or who—yes!—may not even have a computer? Of course, Trump doesn’t care.
Health Care in Danger
Worse yet, Americans face drastic cuts to an entire healthcare system: Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).
Congress was until recently shut down thanks to the opposition of the Democrats to a bill that contains huge cuts to Medicaid and doesn’t extend subsidies for Obamacare. Such cuts, if carried out, will affect millions of seniors and result in the closing of nursing homes and clinics, especially in rural areas and inner cities. If that bill were to pass into law, millions of people would lose a substantial part of their healthcare, with the most damaging and profound effects felt by an aging population.
It’s no secret that seniors have more healthcare problems than younger people. In an aging population, health and wellness are spiraling situations filled with sudden problems like falls, or slowly developing problems like arthritis and osteoarthritis, or simply the endless strain on worn-out joints and ligaments. Cancer, too, is more prevalent in people over 65.
Women, in particular, would feel the pain of such cuts, were they to happen.
Women use the healthcare system more than men do. Recently, Ms Magazine pointed out that women make up the majority of Medicaid recipients, both because they’re more likely to be caregivers and because they’re more likely to need long-term care as they age.
Veterans who fought in the Vietnam War of the last century and the Gulf wars of this century are also in that aging demographic. And like all aging bodies, theirs will register more health needs as the Trump administration cuts the Department of Veteran Affairs and VA hospital staff whose numbers have fallen every month since Trump was inaugurated a second time.
How all of this will affect or damage individual mental health is still being discovered. As a start, however, sickness, hunger, and the lack of enough money for emergencies can result in depression, fear, and far worse. And right now, sadly enough, the heavy hand of the Trump administration continues to press down on the general well-being of seniors (especially those on disability).
Unprotecting Seniors
Clearly, the Trump administration is more interested in self-care than senior care. Why else enact a bill to remove earned healthcare protections that have long been the expected staples of an aging life? When before has a president been so personally and negatively intrusive in the lives of seniors?
Food insecurity is now a fact of life in an aging demographic where nutrition is synonymous with health and longevity, in short with life or death. Though nutrition is necessary for young and old alike, it’s a must for the aging body. Yet food insecurity is now being experienced by millions of seniors, a future threat that has become a present reality.
I’ve written of hunger before, what it feels like to be a poor child growing up. Now, the question must be asked again in a different context: What does it feel like to be old and hungry? Trump doesn’t care.
At a time when the cost of living for essentials—food, rent, and healthcare—continues to rise, the dependence of seniors on the government’s care for the safety net is being whittled away.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP (think food stamps), is having its funds cut drastically. Until recently, SNAP provided significant amounts of food for poor families, though it was never quite enough. Supplies of food from farms and elsewhere that help stock rural as well as inner-city food banks have also decreased due to cuts in funds, including for food banks run by state, city, and church organizations.
Presently 4.8 million seniors 60 and older receive food via SNAP. However, it’s estimated that many more eligible seniors are not receiving food help. Attention must be paid: Seniors do not have enough to eat and—dare I repeat this in the richest country in the world?—Trump doesn’t care, but we must.
Past administrations have opted for less government but without tearing away as much of the safety net as the Trump administration continues to do. His cuts are careless, dangerous, and done without either significant thought or understanding. An aging society now under siege should be everyone’s problem since (if we’re lucky) we all get old.
Recently in Great Britain huge numbers of the elderly turned out en masse to shout ENOUGH, give us what we need, what we’ve earned, so that we can live with food, shelter, and our earned rest after years of work. Isn’t it time for elderly Americans, too, to turn out en masse to shout out our anger, dismay, and refusal to be placed in such a dangerous situation?
Project 2025, Russell Vought’s project to reshape the government in a second Trump presidency (about which Trump swore, during the election campaign, that he knew nothing) chronicled well ahead of time all that he and his administration are now doing to the detriment of us all, but especially to seniors. The Trumpian version of the invocation that we should all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps in no way takes into account the millions of people who have no boots with straps to pull up.
It’s also important to emphasize that all of this is happening in the richest country in the world, one that spends tens of millions of dollars to build a single jet fighter plane, and yet is now cutting funds to programs that help people get enough to eat. Our fury needs to be demonstrated.
The destruction being visited on an aging demographic doesn’t discriminate. It includes many seniors who wear MAGA caps, too. (Perhaps Trump doesn’t care about them either.) We can only hope that their support for a president determined to offer them so little and take away so much will diminish.
At a time when the cost of living for essentials—food, rent, and healthcare—continues to rise, the dependence of seniors on the government’s care for the safety net is being whittled away. Trying to keep the heat and electricity going, the water running, and food on the table is hard enough on a fixed income without having to worry about what President Trump and his Project 2025 cronies plan to take away from us next.
So many of today’s seniors have been workers, activists, parents, and more, all of which has contributed to the well-being of this country, and they have earned care and rest, as well as access to enough food, healthcare, and shelter to get by in a reasonably comfortable fashion. Trump doesn’t care.
Yes, people of all ages feel the heavy hand of the Trump administration in their lives, but the elderly, the sick, and the poor feel it the most, especially those living on fixed incomes.
Our Rights, Our Dignity
Seniors must insist on their rights and respect for their dignity—and not only to each other but out on the streets of this country, supported by Americans of all ages. After all, seniors are someone’s grandparent, parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, cousin, neighbor, or friend.
Because anger at having needs refused, especially as you get older, eats away at your body and soul, expressing it is not only healthy but allows us to feel less alone and more empowered. The millions of us who went onto the streets on No Kings Day to say no to what this administration is doing demonstrated the power of numbers, which is not a small thing. In that context, taking senior fury to the streets, with the participation of younger people, couldn’t be more significant when it comes to publicizing the importance of our needs being met. To remain quiet, to “take it” (so to speak) will only help the Trump administration hide the devastation now being visited upon us.
At 79 years old, Donald Trump has all his health, wellness, and food needs taken care of. His life is the assured good life, with hours of rest at his golf clubs. We seniors need to disturb that rest.
Here are some of the worries being expressed daily by seniors:
If my Social Security check doesn’t arrive on time or the funds are mysteriously cut, how will I survive?
If Medicaid is cut, how will I be able to get cataract surgery, or hernia surgery, or steroid injections for my pain?
Without Medicaid, how will I afford an ambulance to get to a hospital in an emergency?
Will lack of funds close my food bank?
And those are just a sampling of the daily worries impeding the earned rest of us seniors.
Statistics: Cold numbers can tell a truth but still do not accurately represent the stress that cutting funds will cause. Follow the dots from those cuts to a small house in the rural south, a cold apartment in an urban high rise, or the “gray wave” of homeless seniors sleeping on the streets, and it’s there you can see such statistics in action, taking the form of worry, illness, hunger, and insecurity. And all of that is happening as Trump permits millions of dollars to be spent on upgrading and furnishing a gift plane from Qatar. Again: In the richest country on earth, how can we allow such treatment to go on without raising our voices? We can’t. We mustn’t.
At 79 years old, Donald Trump has all his health, wellness, and food needs taken care of. His life is the assured good life, with hours of rest at his golf clubs. We seniors need to disturb that rest, become the thorn in his side. We must loudly proclaim our right to feel safe, to be free from hunger and assured of our healthcare and shelter.
Trump rules by fear, the use of which keeps many of us from demonstrating our outrage publicly. Hopefully, seniors who have already lived long and experienced so much won’t be silenced by such fear. We have a collective voice. Numbers matter on the streets and at the ballot box, at town halls and in the hallways of Congress. Along with younger generations who will one day be seniors themselves, it’s time for us to shout NO to all the ways senior needs are now being undermined and ignored. How dare Trump tarnish our golden years!
Unfortunately, an entire society, both young and old, is today experiencing an authoritarian threat to our lives. The insecurity it produces has shaken the very foundations of our American world and so makes it difficult for an aging population to hold on, to remain steady. Yet seniors are the very people who have helped to build this country in ways too numerous to list.
The present leadership protects its power instead of its people. In particular, the Trump administration threatens Black and brown seniors in shameful, racist ways. History has shown that what’s now called DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) has long been part of the backbone of a thriving society. Among other things, Trump’s indiscriminate actions against immigrants are beyond immoral and reach into the homes of seniors, too. (Where does he think his grandparents, his mother, and two of his wives came from?)
As long as voices are raised, anger shared, and street corners filled with demonstrators, hope remains. Throughout history wrongs have been righted by significant numbers of people of all ages refusing to comply. Now is the time to do what history has taught us or, like a dropped ball of yarn, this society will spool too far away to retrieve.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Resistance Has Gray Hair
Seniors are mobilizing because our lives and the benefits we worked a lifetime to earn are under threat, and we refuse to sit by and watch.
Oct 23, 2025
The right-wing ecosystem has found itself a new punching bag: older Americans.
In recent days, Republican elected leadership has tried to minimize widespread anti-Trump protests as being driven by “rhythm-less boomers” and “elderly white hippies.” Vice President JD Vance previously dismissed protesters at Washington’s Union Station as “a bunch of old, primarily white people.”
Their insults have been amplified by the hyperactive right-wing media echo chamber, with a Fox News host casting this weekend’s No Kings protests that drew more than 7 million Americans into the streets as just “a boomer thing.”
Putting aside the obvious irony of MAGA Republicans trying to paint old people as feeble and out of touch, it’s easy to recognize their tactics for what they are—an attempt to delegitimize grassroots power. But as misguided and tactless as these criticisms might be, they’re not totally wrong.
When JD Vance remarked that the seniors protesting him have “never felt danger in their entire lives,” he was ignoring the terrifying reality that American seniors are facing at the hands of his administration.
From No Kings protests to Hands Off marches to Republican town halls—time and again, it’s been seniors and retirees who are showing up, speaking out, and holding the Trump administration accountable. But older Americans aren’t protesting because it’s “our thing”—we’re protesting because it is our duty: to ourselves, to our country, and to future generations of Americans.
We remember what younger generations never experienced firsthand. Together, we’ve lived through wars, political upheaval, recessions, and recoveries. We fought for and won greater civil rights for Black Americans and women, invested in public health and scientific discoveries that saved millions of lives from deadly diseases like polio and measles, and built an economy that was the envy of the world. We’ve seen how collective action can transform our communities and government for the better—and we’ve watched with horror as the Trump administration has erased decades of progress in just nine short months.
We know that change doesn’t happen, it’s made—and while we’d love to spend a little less of our time making protest signs, we’re mobilizing, organizing, and showing up because there is no other choice. When JD Vance remarked that the seniors protesting him have “never felt danger in their entire lives,” he was ignoring the terrifying reality that American seniors are facing at the hands of his administration.
Donald Trump and congressional Republicans continue to wage attacks on the vital programs that seniors rely on, peddling conspiracies about retirement benefits while letting slip their plans to privatize Social Security, gut the hard-fought law that was delivering lower drug prices for Americans with Medicare, and slashing Medicaid for millions of Americans to fund tax breaks for the rich. So while JD Vance thinks our protests are a game, we’re mobilizing because our lives and the benefits we worked a lifetime to earn are under threat, and we refuse to sit by and watch.
But we’re not just showing up for ourselves. We’re fighting for the future, standing arm-in-arm with generations of Americans rising up together against the cruelty coming out of the White House. All around us, freedom is under attack and the Constitution is being trampled. And it’s not just our democracy being jeopardized. As the Trump administration continues to reject science and cut critical research funding, our health is being put at risk too. We refuse to let our kids and grandkids inherit a country with fewer freedoms, less economic mobility, and more disease. We won’t hand them a more fragile democracy than their grandparents had, and we’ll continue to stand in solidarity with every American speaking truth to power.
But our fight isn’t limited to protesting. In North Carolina, seniors showed up at the state house to oppose maps aimed at erasing Black voting power. In California, Alliance for Retired Americans members have made more than 216,000 calls in support of Proposition 50 so far. Across the country, seniors marked the 90th anniversary of Social Security by staging Silver Sit-Ins calling on GOP lawmakers to protect it. These aren’t isolated events. They’re drops in a powerful wave building nationwide.
Instead of minimizing and mocking us, Republicans should see us for what we are: a blaring alarm signaling what’s coming in 2026 and beyond. And if history is any guide, in 2026 we will turn out to vote at higher rates than any other age group.
So let them sneer. Let them poke fun at our age, our rhythm, and our hair. While they’re busy cracking jokes, we’re going to keep on registering voters, packing town halls, and building coalitions that will outlast the chaos of this administration.
If the resistance has gray hair, so be it. The future belongs to those willing to fight for it, and seniors are the vanguard.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Chief Actuary Says Trump-GOP Budget Law Will 'Worsen' Social Security's Finances
"Republicans have brought Social Security closer to running out of money," said Sen. Ron Wyden. "Every day that goes by makes it clear that the Republican agenda is making Americans sicker and poorer."
Aug 06, 2025
The Social Security Administration's chief actuary said Tuesday that the budget package President Donald Trump signed into law last month will harm Social Security's finances, bringing forward the date beyond which the program will no longer be able to pay out full benefits.
In a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who requested an analysis of the budget law's impact on Social Security's trust funds, Chief Actuary Karen Glenn wrote that the income tax provisions of the Trump-GOP measure "will have material effects on the financial status" of the program.
Glenn estimated that under the law—which includes a temporary new tax deduction for seniors—"the reserve depletion date for the [Old-Age and Survivors Insurance] Trust Fund is accelerated from the first quarter of 2033 to the fourth quarter of 2032." Glenn went on to note that the law "will decrease (worsen) the 75-year [Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance] actuarial balance by 0.16 percent of taxable payroll."
"The combined net effect of these income tax provisions results in less overall tax liability for Social Security beneficiaries," Glenn wrote. "In turn, the trust funds will receive lower levels of projected revenue from income taxation of Social Security benefits for all years beginning in 2025."
Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement responding to the actuary's analysis that "not only did Republicans give massive tax breaks to corporations and the ultra-wealthy, not only did they make the largest cut to American healthcare in history, but now it is clear Republicans have brought Social Security closer to running out of money."
"Every day that goes by makes it clear that the Republican agenda is making Americans sicker and poorer," Wyden added.
The most recent Social Security Board of Trustees report, which was released ahead of the budget legislation's passage, estimated that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund would be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2033. Past that point, the trustees found, the fund would be able to pay out 77% of total scheduled benefits.
The actuary's new estimates align with other expert assessments of the budget law, which the Trump-appointed commissioner of the Social Security Administration has openly celebrated with misleading messaging.
The conservative Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated in an analysis released in late June that "the extension and expansion of the 2017 tax cuts, the expanded senior deduction, and other [budget law] changes would reduce total taxation of benefits by roughly $30 billion per year," enough to "accelerate insolvency of the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors (OASI) trust fund from early 2033 to late 2032."
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) echoed those findings, noting that "the new law doesn't help most low- and middle-income seniors, and it depletes the Social Security trust funds faster."
"The law creates a new $6,000 deduction through 2028 for taxpayers aged 65 and over," CBPP researchers explained. "This will reduce taxable income—including from Social Security benefits—and thus the amount of tax that eligible seniors will pay."
Like the budget measure overall, the benefits of the tax deduction for seniors will be heavily skewed toward those with higher incomes. According to a new Tax Policy Center (TPC) analysis, "fewer than half of older adults will benefit at all."
"Among seniors, the biggest beneficiaries will be those making between about $130,000 and $190,000 (the highest-income 80% to 90%). More than 95% will benefit from the higher deduction," TPC estimated. "By contrast, about 99% of those making $24,000 or less would get no benefit from the higher deduction."
Fresh scrutiny of the budget law's impact on Social Security and its beneficiaries comes days after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared that "Trump accounts" established by the law are "a backdoor way for privatizing Social Security."
Bessent later tried to walk back the comments, claiming on social media that the Trump administration is "committed to protecting Social Security and to making sure seniors have more money."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bessent Admits Trump Tax Scam Offers 'Backdoor for Privatizing Social Security'
"Despite their repeated claims they wanted to protect Social Security, the Trump administration said the quiet part out loud," said one critic in response to the billionaire treasury secretary's candid comments.
Jul 30, 2025
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday admitted that a provision in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a mechanism for privatizing Social Security—something President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he won't do.
Speaking at a policy event hosted by the far-right news site Breitbart, Bessent touted the so-called "Trump accounts" available to all U.S. citizen children starting next July under the OBBBA signed by the president earlier this month.
"In a way, it is a backdoor way for privatizing Social Security," the billionaire former hedge fund manager said of the accounts. "Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out—that to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that's a game-changer."
Responding to Bessent's admission, Tim Hogan—the Democratic National Committee senior adviser for messaging, mobilization, and strategy—said that the treasury secretary "just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security."
"It wasn't enough to kick millions of people off their healthcare and take food away from hungry kids," Hogan added. "Trump is now coming after American seniors with a 'backdoor' scam to take away the benefits they earned. Democrats won't stand by as Trump screws over working families in order to give more handouts to billionaires."
House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement: "Today, the treasury secretary said the quiet part out loud: Republicans' ultimate goal is to privatize Social Security, and there isn't a backdoor they won't try to make Wall Street's dream a reality. For everyone else though, it's yet another warning sign that they cannot be trusted to safeguard the program millions rely on and have paid into over a lifetime of work."
Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, mocked Trump's promises to preserve the key program upon which more than 70 million Americans rely—and called him out for eviscerating the Social Security Administration (SSA).
"So much for Donald Trump's campaign promise to protect Social Security," Altman said in a statement. "First, he gave Elon Musk the power to gut SSA. Now, Trump's treasury secretary has said the quiet part out loud. He is bragging about the administration's goal to privatize Social Security."
"First, they are undermining public confidence in Social Security by making false claims about fraud (which is virtually nonexistent) and wrecking the system's service to the public," Altman continued. "Then, once they have broken Social Security, they will say that Wall Street needs to come in and save it."
"That is a terrible idea," she added. "Unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can't outlive. It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street's hands off our Social Security!"
Alliance for Retired Americans executive director Richard Fiesta said that "Bessent let the cat out of the bag: This administration is coming for Social Security."
"We're not surprised—but we are alarmed because this administration has already taken multiple steps to weaken and dismantle Social Security," Fiesta added, highlighting the weakening of the SSA, false fraud claims, and "the massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations" under the OBBBA that experts say will hasten the Social Security Trust Fund's insolvency.
The progressive watchdog Accountable.US called Bessent's remarks "a shocking confession."
"Despite their repeated claims they wanted to protect Social Security, the Trump administration said the quiet part out loud: The Big Ugly Betrayal is a backdoor way to privatize Social Security," Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk said in a statement.
"Once again the administration is risking the financial security of millions of Americans in order to protect a system rigged in the favor of big corporations and billionaires," Carrk added.
In another blow to Social Security recipients, the Trump administration is set to implement a new policy next month that is expected to further increase wait times for basic services. As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, starting in mid-August, SSA will no longer allow seniors to use their phones for routine tasks they've been able to perform for decades.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why We Can't Simply Celebrate Medicare's 60th Birthday
Let's not allow President Trump and congressional Republicans to shred one of the greatest legacies of LBJ's Great Society.
Jul 30, 2025
Medicare turns 60 years old today. Former U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on July 30, 1965, giving seniors a guarantee of health coverage that never existed before. Prior to Medicare's enactment, it was nearly impossible for older people to obtain health insurance, as they were considered a "bad risk."
Medicare provides universal coverage to Americans over 65 years of age. The law created Medicare Part A as a national hospital insurance program. Part B is a voluntary program for doctor visits and other medical services. Medicare Part C is another name for the privatized, for-profit version of the program called "Medicare Advantage." And Part D is the prescription drug program enacted in 2003.
The Hospital Insurance portion is funded through workers' payroll contributions. At the signing ceremony in Independence, Missouri, LBJ said, "Through this new law, every citizen will be able, in their productive years when they are earning, to insure themselves against the ravages of illness in his old age."
Lyndon Johnson paid tribute to former President Harry S. Truman, presenting him with the very first Medicare card. It was Truman who, 20 years earlier, had proposed a form of universal medical coverage for the American people.
LBJ quoted Truman's remarks from the 1940s:
Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection.
It turned out that the time had not yet arrived. Truman's proposal failed to gain traction during a time of retrenchment from the expansions of the New Deal, and a Republican majority on Capitol Hill which he famously labeled the "Do-Nothing Congress."
President Johnson's determination to enact his Great Society agenda (of which Medicare was a large part) and sheer political muscle—not to mention solid Democratic control of Congress—pushed Medicare (and its sister program, Medicaid) into being.
Naturally, Medicare faced strong opposition from conservatives. None other than Ronald Reagan made the ludicrous prediction that if Medicare were enacted, "You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free." Sixty years later, we are no less "free" because of Medicare. In fact, having guaranteed healthcare makes seniors and people with disabilities (and their families) much more free—from disease, from worry, and financial ruin.
Today, 68 million people rely on Medicare for health coverage, including 12 million who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare isn't perfect: The for-profit Medicare Advantage (Part C) program is extremely problematic (see below). The Medicare Part A trust fund will become depleted in 2033 if Congress fails to take action to strengthen it. Traditional Medicare still doesn't cover basic hearing, vision, and dental care—which we have been pushing for many years. But most concerning of all—President Donald Trump and his party have spent this 60th anniversary year actively undermining both Medicare and Medicaid.
The "Unfair, Ugly" bill that Trump signed earlier this month slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, which will strip health coverage from an estimated 10 to 16 million lower-income Americans. The new law—projected to add some $4 trillion to the national debt—could trigger cuts to Medicare down the road.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is recklessly taking steps to privatize the entire Medicare program. It has announced a pilot project to involve private companies in conducting prior authorizations for care in traditional Medicare. The administration, under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Director Mehmet Oz, also has announced a plan to automatically enroll new Medicare beneficiaries in the for-profit Medicare Advantage (MA) program—a huge gift to the multibillion dollar insurance industry at the expense of patients.
The problems with Medicare Advantage (MA) have become legendary. Enrollees are basically put into health maintenance organizations run by insurance giants, with limited networks of providers. Unreasonable denials of care are rampant. Patients who become disenchanted with MA plans often find it nearly impossible to switch to traditional Medicare. Meanwhile, some MA Insurers have been overcharging the government for their services and ripping off taxpayers. (Several of these companies are currently under investigation.)
We are watching to see if the Trump administration, which talks a good game about lowering prescription medication costs while simultaneously doing favors for Big Pharma, will honor the provisions of President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which made myriad patient-friendly reforms to the Part D drug program—including out of pocket caps for beneficiaries and empowering Medicare to negotiate prices with the industry.
The bottom line is: Let's not allow President Trump and congressional Republicans to shred one of the greatest legacies of LBJ's Great Society. We and our fellow advocacy groups are pushing back—and so is the grassroots "Hands Off" movement. But we don't want to be fighting this same battle every time Medicare (and Medicaid) mark an anniversary when we should be purely celebrating.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Extra Cruel': Trump Admin Ends Job Program for Seniors as Work Requirements Loom
"Many of our participants are living on the edge of poverty," said the head of one organization impacted by the termination of the Senior Community Service Employment Program.
Jul 20, 2025
The Trump administration has reportedly terminated the Department of Labor's only job training program for low-income seniors, a decision that came as older Americans braced for new work reporting requirements under the Republican budget law enacted earlier this month.
Bloomberg Law reported Friday that the Labor Department "quietly ended" its Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), which helped low-income Americans aged 55 or older find part-time employment or job training at nonprofits and government agencies. The program, described as a bridge to full-time employment, served tens of thousands of people across the country.
Groups that received funding under SCSEP, such as the National Council on Aging and Goodwill Industries, "say the program stopped giving them money after June 30," according to Bloomberg Law, which reported that the Labor Department "hasn't made available the roughly $300 million set aside for national grant recipients."
The Trump White House has proposed zeroing out funding for SCSEP in its budget request for fiscal year 2026, smearing the program as an "earmark to leftist, DEI-promoting entities."
In a July 17 letter to Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, a group of Democratic lawmakers led by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) warned that the withholding of SCSEP funds has already had "devastating impacts," pointing to program grantees in several states that have been forced to furlough thousands of low-income seniors.
Clayton Fong, president and CEO of the National Asian Pacific Center on Aging, said earlier this month that the funding delay "is not just a bureaucratic issue—it's a crisis for tens of thousands of older adults who depend on SCSEP to survive."
"Many of our participants are living on the edge of poverty," said Fong. "SCSEP gives them purpose, dignity, and the ability to put food on the table. The longer this delay continues, the deeper the harm is."
Bloomberg Law noted that the impact of the ending of SCSEP "could be particularly dire for the thousands of participants who will have to find work or volunteer hours to keep their public health insurance coverage."
"The cruelty is the point," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote on social media in response to Bloomberg Law's reporting.
Just piling up the bad news today...Our nationwide job training program for low-income seniors has had bipartisan support for decades.It's extra cruel to end it right on the heels of new work requirements to access Medicaid and food assistance.
[image or embed]
— Alt U.S. Department of Labor (@alt-dol.altgov.info) Jul 18, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Millions of older Americans receive health coverage through Medicaid. The AARP Public Policy Institute has estimated that 9 million Medicaid recipients between the ages of 50 and 64 will be subject to the Trump-GOP budget law's work requirements, which mandate that certain enrollees engage in work, job training, or other qualifying activities for at least 80 hours per month—or lose coverage.
The mandates are set to take effect late next year, after the 2026 midterm elections.
The Republican law also expands work requirements for recipients of federal nutrition assistance, raising the age limit for the mandates from 55 to 64. Millions of older adults are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program nationwide.
"We believe every American deserves to age with dignity—and that requires affordable access to the basics of life such as food and healthcare," Ramsey Alwin, president and CEO of the National Council on Aging, said earlier this month after Republicans pushed the budget measure through Congress. "This act would put that further out of reach for millions of older Americans in need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Proposes 'Pensions for All' as Trump Aims to Open 401(k)s to Private Equity Vultures
"We can no longer tolerate a rigged retirement system that allows the CEOs of large corporations to receive massive golden parachutes for themselves, while denying workers a pension after a lifetime of work," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 17, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation Thursday aimed at addressing the nation's retirement security crisis as President Donald Trump reportedly prepared an executive order that would give private equity vultures easier access to the 401(k) plans that have overtaken traditional pensions.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) Pensions for All Act would require big corporations to either provide their workers with a pension plan that is at least as generous as the one enjoyed by members of Congress or "pay into the federal retirement system at a level that ensures all of their workers receive the same amount of retirement benefits" as lawmakers.
The senator characterized the new bill as a supplement to his proposal to expand Social Security benefits.
"We can no longer tolerate a rigged retirement system that allows the CEOs of large corporations to receive massive golden parachutes for themselves, while denying workers a pension after a lifetime of work," Sanders said in a statement. "If we are serious about addressing the retirement crisis in America, corporations must be required to offer all of their workers a traditional pension plan that guarantees a monthly income in retirement."
"And if corporations refuse to offer a decent retirement plan, their workers must be allowed to receive the same type of pension that every member of Congress receives," the senator added. "If we can guarantee a defined-benefit pension plan for members of Congress, we can and we must provide that same level of retirement security to every worker in America."
"Every member of Congress has a guaranteed pension—for life. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the people who build this country."
Sanders introduced his bill after The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is expected to sign an executive order in the coming days "designed to help make private-market investments more available to U.S. retirement plans"—a move that one critic called "a dangerous scheme to fleece savers."
"The retirement system is supposed to serve workers, not Wall Street," wrote Oscar Valdés Viera, a policy analyst with the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "We need policies that strengthen retirement security and allow people to retire with dignity—not policies that invite hidden fees, reduced transparency, and elevated risk. Allowing predatory private equity and private credit funds to infiltrate 401(k)s would result in a massive transfer of wealth from small investors and workers to the richest men on Wall Street."
Supporters of Sanders' legislation similarly argued for retirement system reforms that benefit workers, not Wall Street and corporate executives.
Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers—which has pushed the so-called Big Three automakers to restore traditional pension plans—said Thursday that "the billionaire class gutted pensions in pursuit of profit, and Washington let it happen."
"CEOs walk away with golden parachutes while working people walk into retirement with nothing," said Fain. "Meanwhile, every member of Congress has a guaranteed pension—for life. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the people who build this country. The retirement crisis is real, and it's time for Congress to act."
In a summary of the new legislation, Sanders' office observed that just 9% of private-sector workers in the U.S. currently have access to traditional defined-benefit pension plans—down from 44% in 1975.
"The results for workers have been tragic," Sanders' team continued, noting that "in our country today, nearly half of older workers between the ages of 55 and 64 have no savings at all and no idea how they will be able to retire with any shred of dignity or respect."
"If Congress can provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the top 1% and over $900 billion in tax breaks for large corporations," Sanders said Thursday, "please do not tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every worker in America can retire with the dignity and the respect they deserve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Medicaid Cuts Are a Dagger Pointed Directly at Our Most Vulnerable
Every moment that activists can delay the passage of these Medicaid cuts is more time to mount an opposition. Republicans might not want to admit it, but support for Medicaid is strong and deep.
May 16, 2025
The numbers are clear. Nursing home residents depend on Medicaid. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, fully 63% of nursing home care in the United States is funded by Medicaid. Some states are even more dependent on Medicaid than the national average. For example, in West Virginia fully 77% of nursing home care is funded by Medicaid.
Politico reported on the morning of May 15 that after a marathon markup session lasting 26 hours, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced legislation that “would slash Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.” These cuts would directly impact nursing home residents and their families. The Washington Post reports that:
“Their [nursing home residents] coverage will be at risk,” said Katie Sloan Smith, president and chief executive of LeadingAge, a Washington lobbying association for operators of nonprofit senior-care facilities. “Either the home itself will have to make up for that loss in some way or they will simply have to say, ‘We can no longer support people on Medicaid’ and close those beds.”
While the Medicaid cuts would hurt nursing home patients, they would also severely impact those who receive care at home (often referred to as home and community-based care). According to National Public Radio, Medicaid pays for care at home for roughly 4.5 million Americans.
The Medicaid cuts that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee would devastate America’s family caregivers as Medicaid also funds caregiver respite programs and caregiver training. The cuts would hurt our most vulnerable and their families.
Where are our citizens on the question of Medicaid cuts? The evidence clearly shows that the American people oppose Medicaid cuts. In fact, there is support for more spending on Medicaid. Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation published in March of this year found that 42% want to see an increase in Medicaid spending. Just under 3 in 4 (73%) of respondents say that Medicaid is important to their local communities. Democrats (83%), Independents (74%), and Republicans (61%) all see Medicaid as very important to their local community.
Late Thursday May 15, the fate of the measure that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee was in doubt as the legislation moves to a vote in the House of Representatives. There will no doubt be more twists and turns before the measure heads to the Senate. Every moment that activists can delay the passage of these Medicaid cuts is more time to mount an opposition. Republicans might not want to admit it, but support for Medicaid is strong and deep.
This is the greatest threat to Medicaid since its creation in 1965. The GOP legislation is a dagger pointed directly at our most vulnerable. Many of those who would be impacted by Medicaid cuts are not able to raise their voices. Therefore, it up to those of us who can, to raise our voices and tell our elected representatives to reject these cruel proposals that would devastate our families, friends, and neighbors. The stakes in the debate over Medicaid are far too high for any of us to stay silent.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy