SSA Worker: Why DOGE Could Be ‘Sabotaging' Social Security — and How That Affects You
Check Out:
Read Next:
In an interview with The Daily Beast1 published on April 8, SSA claims technical analyst Rennie Glasgow said, 'We're being pushed to ensure that we cannot perform effectively and efficiently, so that they can privatize.
'I'm almost certain that the goal is privatization for this agency because there's a lot of money they want to get their hands on,' he said.
Glasgow, a 15-year veteran of SSA and vice president of Local 3343 of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents SSA workers, noted that the SSA is remarkably cost-efficient, spending just 1% of its budget on employee costs. In fact, the total administrative costs from both of Social Security's trust funds is less than 1%, according to the SSA.2
Glasgow's suspicion stems in part from workforce reductions that have increased wait times for phone help and in-person assistance. Exacerbating the delays are daily system outages that render staff at Glasgow's Schenectady, New York, office unable to help individuals who might already have waited several hours for their turn at a window.
Also concerning is DOGE's demand for secure access to SSA databases — a move Glasgow said circumvents strict controls on beneficiary information and essentially allows DOGE to make up its own rules as it goes.
Glasgow is not the only one who suspects that the DOGE-induced chaos is part of a concerted effort to discredit Social Security program operations. Earlier this month, Alex Jacquez, a former National Economic Council senior policy advisor and current chief of policy at Groundwork Collaborative, told Fortune,3 'My view is that the ultimate goal here is what has been the holy grail for Republicans for decades now, which is to privatize the Social Security Administration and privatize Social Security.
'There's already a long list of things that Elon [Musk] and the administration have basically floated as being services that they want the private sector to take over,' Jacquez said.
President Donald Trump says his administration won't touch Social Security, and Frank Bisignano, Trump's nominee for SSA commissioner, has denied hearing or thinking of plans for privatization.4 However, Musk is a vocal critic of Social Security. He has called the program a Ponzi scheme and made unsubstantiated accusations, often amplified by Trump, that the SSA is engaging in fraud5 — despite a 99.97% payment accuracy rate for Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, according to the Office of the Inspector General.6
As Glasgow noted, customer service is already suffering under the weight of cutbacks. That could get worse amid regional office closures and the loss of field and hearing offices due to lease terminations. But if his suspicions about privatization are correct, the restructuring could have a significant impact on Social Security benefits as well.
Under the current system, Social Security payroll taxes go into trust funds that invest the money in U.S. Treasuries, which offer predictable but low returns compared to the stock market. Privatization would allow beneficiaries to invest some or all of their payroll withholdings. Proponents say these investments could result in larger nest eggs because of higher returns.
Privatization opponents point out that Treasuries are extremely safe because they're backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. That safety allows the SSA to guarantee your Social Security retirement benefits. Stock market returns, on the other hand, are unpredictable and never guaranteed, so your retirement benefits couldn't be guaranteed, either.
It's important to remember that Social Security is only meant to replace about 40% of income at full retirement age, which is currently 67. However, a survey by The Senior Citizens League7 found that two-thirds of America's seniors rely on Social Security benefits for more than half of their income, and nearly half of seniors rely on it for 76% to 100% of their income. While higher benefits would have obvious advantages, they'd come at the expense of the safety net millions of seniors rely on to ensure that their most basic needs are met after they leave the workforce.
Sources
The Daily Beast, 'I Know Musk's Secret Blueprint to Destroy Social Security from The Inside.' (April 9, 2025)
︎
Social Security Administration, 'Social Security Administrative Expenses.'
︎
Fortune, 'Elon Musk's DOGE is undermining the Social Security Administration's technology and operations, former White House official says.' (April 1, 2025)
︎
ABC News, 'Trump SSA pick not seeking to privatize Social Security, will meet people 'where they want to be met.'' (March 25, 2025)
︎
NPR, 'Former head of Social Security says Elon Musk and DOGE are wrong about the agency.' (March 24, 2025)
︎
Payment Accuracy, 'Annual Improper Payments Datasets.'
︎
The Senior Citizens League, 'Two-Thirds of Seniors Rely on Social Security for More Than Half Their Income.' (Nov. 5, 2024)
︎
More From GOBankingRates
5 Luxury Cars That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Spring 2025
4 Things You Should Do if You Want To Retire Early
These 10 Used Cars Will Last Longer Than an Average New Vehicle
4 Affordable Car Brands You Won't Regret Buying in 2025
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: SSA Worker: Why DOGE Could Be 'Sabotaging' Social Security — and How That Affects You
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
2 minutes ago
- CBS News
Target CEO Brian Cornell will step down in February, COO will take his place
Target CEO Brian Cornell, who helped reenergize the company but has struggled to turn around weak sales in a more competitive retail landscape since the COVID pandemic, plans to step down Feb. 1. Minneapolis-based Target Corp. said Wednesday that Chief Operating Officer Michael Fiddelke, a 20-year company veteran, will succeed Cornell. Cornell will transition to be executive chair of the board. Cornell, 66, took the helm at Target in August 2014. In September 2022, the board extended his contract for three more years and eliminated a policy requiring its chief executives to retire at age 65. Cornell said the appointment followed several years of board vetting of both internal and external candidates. Fiddelke has overhauled Target's supply network and expanded the company's stores and digital services while cutting costs. "Mike was the right candidate to lead our business back to growth," Cornell told reporters. "As I arrived at Target, I consistently relied on Michael's strategic insights and sound judgment when making decisions. Michael has developed a deeper knowledge of our business than anyone I know." Fiddelke told reporters he's stepping into the role with "urgency" to reclaim the company's merchandising authority. "When we're leading with swagger in our merchandising authority, when we have swagger in our marketing, and we're setting the trend for retail, those are some of the moments I think that Target has been at its highest in my 20 years," he said. In May, Target announced that Fiddelke would lead a new office focused on faster decision-making to help accelerate sales growth. The change in leadership was announced Wednesday at the same time that Target reported another quarter of sluggish results. The company's stock was down more than 8% in pre-market trading. Target reported a 21% drop in net income in the quarter ended Aug. 2. Sales were down slightly and the company reported a 1.9% dip in comparable sales — those from established physical stores and online channels. Target has seen flat or declining comparable sales in eight out of the past 10 quarters, including the latest period. Target, which has about 1,980 U.S. stores, has been the focus of consumer boycotts since late January, when it joined rival Walmart and a number of other prominent American brands in scaling back corporate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Target's sales also have languished as customers defect to Walmart and off-price department store chains like TJ Maxx in search of lower prices. But many analysts think Target is stumbling because consumers no longer consider it the place to go for affordable but stylish products, a niche that long ago earned the retailer the jokingly posh nickname "Tarzhay." In fact, out of 35 merchandise categories that Target tracks, it gained or maintained market share in only 14 during the latest quarter, Fiddelke told reporters Tuesday. Meanwhile, Walmart gained market share among households with incomes over $100,000 as U.S. inflation caused consumer prices to rise rapidly. Lower-income shoppers have driven customer growth at Target, suggesting it may have lost appeal with wealthier customers, according to market research firm Consumer Edge. "It's probably not the best sign, especially because higher-income consumers continue to hold up a little bit better" during times of economic uncertainty, said Consumer Edge Head of Insights Michael Gunther. The company also recently ended a longstanding price matching policy that allowed customers to request a price match if they found an identical item with a lower cost at competitors Amazon or Walmart. The new policy only lets shoppers price match Target's in-store prices with its own online prices. In March, members of Target's executive team told investors they planned to regain the chain's reputation for selling stylish goods at budget prices by expanding Target's lineup of store label brands and shortening the time it took to get new items from the idea stage to store shelves. The moves would help the company stay close to trends, executives said. "In a world where we operate today, our guests are looking for Tarzhay," Cornell told investors. "Consumers coined that term decades ago to define how we elevate the everything everyday to something special, how we had unexpected fun in the shopping that would be otherwise routine." Before joining Target, Cornell spent more than 30 years in leadership positions at retail and consumer-product companies, including as chief marketing officer at Safeway Inc. and CEO at Michaels, Walmart's Sam's Club and PepsiCo America Foods. He came to Target when the company was facing a different set of challenges. Cornell replaced former CEO Gregg Steinhafel, who stepped down nearly five months after Target disclosed a huge data breach in which hackers stole millions of customers' credit- and debit-card records. The theft badly damaged the chain's reputation and profits. Cornell reenergized sales by having his team rev up Target's store brands. It now has 40 private label brands in its portfolio. And even before the pandemic, Cornell spearheaded the company's mission to transform its stores into delivery hubs to cut down on costs and speed up deliveries. Target's 2017 acquisition of Shipt helped bolster the discounter's same-day, store-based fulfillment services. Cornell also focused on making its stores better tailored to the local community The coronavirus pandemic delivered outsized sales for Target as well as its peers as people stayed home and bought pajamas, furnishings and kitchen items. And it continued to see a surge in sales as shoppers emerged from their homes and went to stores. But the spending sprees eventually subsided. As inflation started to spike, Target reported a 52% drop in profits during its 2022 first quarter compared with a year earlier. Purchases of big TVs and appliances that Americans loaded up on during the pandemic faded, leaving the retailer with excess inventory that had to be sold off. In July 2023, as shoppers feeling pinched by inflation curtailed their spending, Target said its comparable sales declined for the first time in six years. Moreover, Target started losing its edge as an authority on style by focusing too much on home furnishings basics, and not enough trendy items, Fiddelke said. A customer backlash over the annual line of LGBTQ+ Pride merchandise Target stores carried that year further cut into sales. Although Walmart retreated from its diversity initiatives first, Target has been the focus of more concerted consumer boycotts. Organizers have said they viewed Target's action as a greater betrayal because the company previously had held itself out as a champion of inclusion. Earlier this summer, Target announced its commercial unit employees were being asked to return to the office at least three days a week starting in September.
Vox
2 minutes ago
- Vox
How conservatives help their young thinkers — and why liberals don't
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Attendees look on during Turning Point USA's Culture War event at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, on October 29, 2019. Megan Jelinger/AFP via Getty Images Last week, two young liberals asked for help finding a job in the ideas industry. And I didn't have a great answer. It made sense that they were asking: We were at a conference for liberals, dedicated to building a version of the doctrine that works in the 21st century. They were interested in studying ideas professionally, and I was there to moderate a panel about political philosophy. Yet I found myself struggling to give good advice. Sure, they could try for an internship at a liberal publication or think tank, but those are fiercely competitive and don't pay much. They could apply for a PhD program, but teaching jobs were scarce even before President Donald Trump took a hammer to American academia. What's really missing are programs of a specific kind — ones that help college students and recent grads engage with Big Ideas and connect with Important People. If my young acquaintances were right-wing, I might have told them to apply for National Review's Buckley and Rhodes journalism fellowships — multiyear paid opportunities to write for a national audience straight out of college. For a lesser commitment, they could have tried for the Claremont Institute's Publius Fellowship — a three-week program where you receive $1,500, a $700 travel stipend, free housing, paid meals, and an opportunity to study with some of the most influential (and radical) figures of the Trump era. On the Right The ideas and trends driving the conservative movement, from senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Those are two examples of numerous well-funded programs explicitly designed to usher as many bright young people into the institutional conservative world as possible. If you're an ambitious young college grad, and anywhere on the spectrum from libertarian to hardcore Trumpist, you've got tons of options to get into the ideas game. My young acquaintances really wanted a liberal version of such a thing. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to exist. Where there should be a talent pipeline from universities to liberal public intellectualism, there is a giant sucking sound instead. And, increasingly, it's giving the right a leg up in winning the future. The right's winning formula for training youth It is true, as conservatives have long alleged, that America's intellectual institutions are pretty left-leaning places. They often overstate the case — professors are more likely to be Elizabeth Warren Dems than 'globalize the intifada' socialist revolutionaries — but data confirms that liberals outnumber conservatives in academia and the media by pretty significant margins. This is, of course, not at all new. One of the founding texts of the postwar conservative movement, William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale, is all about how academia is full of socialists who are chipping away at the eternal truths of capitalism and Christianity. Buckley founded National Review as an antidote to what he saw as the liberal tilt of the mainstream American press. The legacy of Buckley-style thinking is the rise of a conservative ideas industry. A young person nowadays could attend college at right-wing Hillsdale, build their law school life around membership in the Federalist Society, and then get a job writing right-wing papers for the Heritage Foundation — all while getting their news from Fox News and Mark Levin's radio show. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. At the same time, the right also invested in the kinds of 'pipeline' programs our young liberals are desperate for. These aren't designed to replace traditional education or media institutions, but rather to identify young people interested in ideas and expose them to the right-wing alternatives. These work, in large part, by being intellectually exciting. It's not just that you get to go on all-expenses-paid trips with nice meals; it's that you are put in an environment where you're reading and debating classic works of political thought and literature with other people who share those interests. If you're the kind of nerd who wants to debate the finer points of Locke and Hamilton during undergrad summers, you're the kind of nerd who might one day be someone who matters in US politics — and the right's fellowships are there to help make sure you're mattering on their side. The people these young people are meeting are important and famous (well, DC famous). In a 2021 episode of the Know Your Enemy podcast, Nate Hochman — a radical young conservative writer who later staffed both Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Eric Schmitt — talks at length about 'the masterful things the conservative movement institutionally has done in terms of mentorship.' Hochman, who was raised in a liberal household and moved to the right in college, describes how the movement's fellowship programs brought him in direct and meaningful contact with conservatism's leading lights. 'All of a sudden, you're at dinner with people you've looked up to for years, staying up until 1 am drinking wine with them and asking them questions and getting to talk to them. And they're taking you seriously,' Hochman says. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. When you stay up late drinking with someone, talking about shared ideas, you come to care about them in a way you don't if they sent you a cold email. When they come looking for help getting a job writing about conservative ideas, you'll work that much harder to place them in one. And the right has built its institutions to ensure that such positions are available. Right-wing publications and think tanks are much more open to debating big-picture questions — say, what kind of a nation is America? — than their left-wing peers (more on that in a second). Claremont, for example, was founded by students of conservative political philosopher Harry Jaffa, and it shows in the kind of work they put out (even when it strikes me as substantively ridiculous). Liberals are suffering from success There is no parallel culture in American liberalism — a function, in part, of liberalism's longtime intellectual dominance. There wasn't much of a need for liberal donors to create programs to cultivate liberal thought, as people interested could simply go get a PhD or an entry-level reporting job. However, these institutions were not avowedly liberal in character. They styled themselves as politically neutral, focused more on quality research and reporting, than as contributing to a particular ideological cause. This means that while liberals in such fields were in left-leaning environments, many were trained to see themselves primarily as professionals working a craft. So while there are plenty of internships available to young liberals, they're mostly focused on professional training (or coffee-fetching) rather than staying up late swapping ideas with big names. More broadly, the liberal professional approach also produced a kind of intellectual siloing. If you were a young liberal interested in political philosophy, odds are that you end up going to a PhD program and pursuing a career in academia. If you're interested in policy, odds are that you ended up studying a set of applied skills (like law or economics) that prepared you for very specific policy discussions in your area of expertise. But the conservative intellectual model bridges the philosophy-policy gap. It trains young people in the big-picture ideas, like conservative visions of political morality and religion, and teaches them to connect those things to everyday policy discussions. You aren't learning about abstract ideas or concrete policy, but rather learning a comprehensive worldview that treats policy issues as downstream of specific values. You are, in short, learning an ideology. Liberalism has plenty of brilliant theorists who work at a largely abstract level, and policy wonks who work on the most applied issues. But in the middle area of ideology, one bridging the gap between principle and policy, they've basically ceded the field to conservatism. The pipeline problem for young people is a symptom of the movement's blind spot: liberals, as a collective, don't care to cultivate a youth ideological cadre. This might not have been a problem in the past — and maybe even a benefit. Ideological thinking tends to produce rigidity, an unwillingness to adjust one's policy thinking based on new evidence. The right's longtime insistence that tax cuts can reduce deficits, or addiction to proposing military solutions to foreign policy problems, are two examples of curdled ideology. But we're at a moment where liberalism is in a particular kind of crisis: under threat from new ideologies that challenge not specific liberal policy ideas, but the basic premises of a liberal political system. Liberals need a new and compelling vision: one that explains why our ideas are not merely a defense of an unpopular status quo, but a broader politics that can be used to address cardinal problems of the 21st century. At this moment, liberals lack the personnel to articulate such a vision — while the right's radical thinkers, at places like Claremont, seize the field.
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats launch radio ad attacking GOP over cuts to rural radio funding
The Senate Democrats' campaign arm is launching a new radio ad Wednesday attacking Republicans for slashing funding for rural radio stations as a part of more than $1 billion Republicans made in cuts to public broadcasting in their recissions package. 'Thank you for listening to your local radio station. But stations like these might not be around for long,' a narrator says in the 30-second ad, which was first shared with The Hill. 'Last month in D.C., Republican Senators cut radio funding, voting to end weather alerts, community news and our way to stay connected,' the narrator continued. 'Rural America relies on radio. But Republican politicians left us behind.' They added, 'We can't trust them to fight for us.' The ads are being aired in recognition of National Radio Day, and they're expected to run in rural stations in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, all of which Senate Democrats are eyeing as potential pick-up opportunities next year. 'Rural communities rely on local radio to stay connected on everything from local news to lifesaving alerts about severe weather — but Republican Senators left them behind,' Maeve Coyle, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), said in a statement. 'Republican senators will be forced to explain to their constituents why they're robbing the programs that support their communities in order to pay for a giveaway to billionaires,' she added. President Trump signed a recissions package last month, which rescinds around $9 billion Congress had previously approved for funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB), which helps fund NPR and PBS and its affiliates, and global aid programs. CPB is contending with more than $1 billion in cuts alone. Federal funding makes up a smaller percentage of the money NPR and PBS rely on, but rural stations have already warned it will impact them more severely since it makes up a higher proportion of their overall funding. Republicans have attacked NPR and PBS, arguing they're liberally biased and their programs push 'radical left positions,' which its leaders have pushed back on. Contending with the cuts, the CPB announced it would begin to shut down, with its president Patricia Harrison saying in a statement 'we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations.'
