The Right Keeps Getting Social Security Disastrously Wrong

Newsweek

a day ago

As Yogi Berra put it, "it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." He could have added, "and especially in politics."
Still, there's a pretty good chance that one of the most significant moments for next year's election just happened a little over a week ago, in a little-noticed remark from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He was filmed at a private event saying that the Republican budget's new "Trump Accounts"—savings vehicles for children—would be a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security."
Well, there's three and a half seconds of political dynamite. And it's equal parts tone deaf, revealing, and misguided.
Tone deaf because Americans have been screaming at politicians for decades to keep their damn hands off Social Security. Every attempt to mess with the program has backfired—most notoriously in the case of President George W. Bush's effort to privatize the program in 2005, which instantly took ten points off his approval rating and set the stage for his political downfall. Americans treat Social Security like a family member: whatever quibbles they may have, they freak out if anyone else dares criticize it. That's why voters from both parties simultaneously tell pollsters that they're only moderately satisfied with Social Security, but overwhelmingly and angrily oppose any suggestion of cutting benefits.
ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - MAY 16: U.S. President Donald J. Trump speaks during a US-UAE Investment Forum alongside U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent (R) at Qasr al-Watan, presidential palace of the...
ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES - MAY 16: U.S. President Donald J. Trump speaks during a US-UAE Investment Forum alongside U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent (R) at Qasr al-Watan, presidential palace of the United Arab Emirates, on May 16, 2025, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. MoreRevealing because Bessent knows all of this and said what he said anyway. He's no dummy; he knows the political history here, knows the polling even among Republicans, and knows that because Social Security is "the third rail of American politics" (i.e., touch it and you're dead), his boss President Donald Trump has had to promise repeatedly to leave it alone. So why do this? Because the right-wing powers behind the throne have long harbored ambitions to crush Social Security, and when he got in front of an elite right-wing audience at a Breitbart event, he copped to what they so desperately want, despite the peril. Like the parable of the scorpion and the frog, they can't help it—it's in their nature.
Misguided because Trump Accounts are actually a terrible way to privatize Social Security—if that's the goal here—or even to encourage more savings.
There have been plenty of proposals from both parties over the years to have the federal government kick in money to jump start people's savings. That's a pretty good idea.
But Trump Accounts are shockingly thin gruel: even under rosy assumptions, the amount the government kicks in would only turn into about $4,000 after 18 years, would go only to babies born in a narrow four-year window through 2029, and would rely on parents knowing how to sign up—meaning very few would, especially among lower-income households. Obnoxiously, the accounts do offer tax benefits for wealthy households, who tend to find out about programs like this and have the means to contribute more. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, these accounts are just a weaker version of existing tax-preferred accounts, and will mostly help families who are already well off.
It's true that Americans don't save enough—we put away only about a third as much as people living in the Eurozone. But these accounts clearly won't fix that problem, let alone create meaningful retirement nest eggs. And this is what the Trump administration is dangling to get people to suddenly change their minds about Social Security privatization?
Bessent's remarks were doubly misguided because the entire idea of pushing private accounts as a Social Security substitute deliberately and insidiously distorts the whole purpose of Social Security.
Here's the key thing the Right intentionally gets wrong: Social Security isn't a savings program. It's an insurance program. It's insurance against being poor in old age. And it's incredibly good at doing that: without it, 37 percent of seniors would live in poverty right now. With it, the figure is only 10 percent.
Savings are a great way to have resources for the future. Insurance is a great way to deal with the risk of something bad happening despite your best efforts to have resources for the future. Social Security is designed to provide security—to be there in addition to your savings if they're not enough. Replacing it with private accounts is like telling people that there won't be any home insurance anymore, so they should save a lot more in case their house catches on fire. Good luck with that.
Again, Bessent is a smart economist, and George W. Bush's administration was also full of clever economists. They understand what Social Security really is. Their conflation of Social Security with savings is calculated to confuse: they're just muddying the waters to try to hide the sheer unpleasantness of their plans lurking under the surface.
So, yes, predictions often go wrong. But Americans have seen through this muck before. And Social Security is still one of their top concerns. Here's betting that we haven't seen the last of this moment by a long shot.
Matt Robison is a writer, podcast host, and former congressional staffer.
The views in this article are the writer's own.