SSA Worker: Why DOGE Could Be ‘Sabotaging' Social Security — and How That Affects You
Social Security has long been considered the untouchable 'third rail' of American politics. But a seasoned Social Security Administration (SSA) employee predicts that the upheaval resulting from recent restructuring initiatives implemented by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is intended to 'destroy Social Security from the inside.'
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
31 minutes ago
Members of the Fulbright scholarship board resign, accusing Trump of meddling
All 12 members of the board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright scholarships on Wednesday resigned in protest of what they call the Trump administration's meddling with the selection of award recipients, according to a statement. A statement published online by the board members said the administration usurped the board's authority by denying awards to 'a substantial number of people' who already had been chosen. Another 1,200 award recipients who were already approved to come to the U.S. are undergoing an unauthorized review process that could lead to their rejection, the board members said. 'To continue to serve after the Administration has consistently ignored the Board's request that they follow the law would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad,' the statement reads. Congress established the Fulbright program nearly 80 years ago to promote international exchange and American diplomacy. The highly selective program awards about 9,000 scholarships annually in the U.S. and in more than 160 other countries to students, scholars, and professionals in a range of fields. A message seeking comment was left with the State Department, which runs the scholarship program. The resignations were first reported by The New York Times. The intervention from the Trump administration undermined the program's merit-based selection process and its insulation from political influence, the board members wrote. 'We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute,' the statement said. 'It is our sincere hope that Congress, the courts, and future Fulbright Boards will prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs.' Award recipients are selected in a yearlong process by nonpartisan staff at the State Department. The recipients who had their awards canceled are in fields including biology, engineering, medical sciences, and history, the board members said. The announcement comes as the Trump administration ratchets up scrutiny of international students on several fronts. The administration has expanded the grounds for revoking foreign students' legal status, and recently paused scheduling of new interviews for student visas as it increases vetting of their social media activity. The government also has moved to block foreign students from attending Harvard as it pressures the Ivy League school to adopt a series of reforms. ___ standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge sides with city of Austin in lawsuit involving former American-Statesman site
A judge this week ruled in favor of the city of Austin in a case involving the former American-Statesman site just south of downtown along Lady Bird Lake. The ruling denied a motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by the Save Our Springs Alliance, an environmental watchdog group. The lawsuit alleged that the Austin City Council violated key provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act in 2022 when it approved a special type of zoning known as a planned unit development, or PUD, for the former Statesman site. The lawsuit sought to void the council's Dec. 2, 2022 vote to approve the PUD, based on the alleged open meetings violations. The Statesman moved several years ago from the site at 305 S. Congress Ave. to a new location near the airport. In arguing their case before District Judge Jan Soifer on May 15, Save Our Springs attorneys Bobby Levinski and Bill Bunch contended that the council granted the PUD zoning in violation of two key mandates of the Texas Open Meetings Act: proper public notice, and a reasonable opportunity for the public to speak before the vote was taken. Levinski said today that the Save Our Springs Alliance might appeal the ruling. "Given the importance of this case for governmental transparency and proper enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act, we'll be evaluating our options for appeal," Levinski said. "This case ultimately impacts the ability of residents to weigh in on important matters that affect their community, including the relocation of the Hike and Bike Trail and removal of the natural, tree-lined aesthetic of the Lady Bird Lake shoreline. Every case has its challenges, and we may need to work on it a little longer to ultimately prevail." More: Lawsuit seeks to halt planned redevelopment of former Statesman site on Lady Bird Lake Casey Dobson and Sara Wilder Clark represented the landowner, the Cox family of Atlanta, along with Austin-based Endeavor Real Estate Group. The Cox family hired Endeavor several years ago to create plans to redevelop the prime waterfront site. The site formerly housed the newspaper offices and printing plant. Cox sold the Statesman but retained ownership of the 18.9-acre site, a property many developers had long coveted and said was ripe for new development. Dobson did not immediately respond to an email for comment about the ruling and what it means for future plans to transform the property into a mixed-use project with high-rise buildings and other uses, which could include housing, office and retail development. Richard Suttle Jr., an Austin attorney and the spokesperson for the planned redevelopment, said he hasn't seen a final judgment yet in the case, so couldn't comment on what it might mean for the future planned redevelopment. Dan Richards represented the city in the lawsuit. Richards said Soifer's ruling, signed Monday, means "the trial court case is basically over." At last month's hearing, Richards told Soifer that voiding the PUD could jeopardize the developer's ability, in the current economic climate, to secure a new amendment offering the same level of community benefits — such as 6.5 acres of green space — at the site. At the same hearing, Dobson and Wilder Clark said the PUD zoning change was properly noticed, and the public was given sufficient opportunity to speak at nine different meetings. However, Levinski said that, while the PUD was listed on the council agenda as a zoning item, that posting was misleading because it failed to provide "full disclosure of the subjects to be discussed." The proposed PUD ordinance encompassed "numerous provisions that extend well beyond traditional zoning regulations," Levinski told Soifer. Those included "sweeping changes" to environmental protections and other city land-use codes, including a failure to disclose height limits, setbacks and the elimination of two restrictive covenants. "There are so many different parts of this (PUD) ordinance that are not zoning, yet it was sold to public as a rezoning," Levinski said. The zoning changes included modifications to the Lady Bird Lake shoreline; the relocation of the Ann and Roy Butler Hike and Bike Trail inland away from the lake; the removal of more than 90 mature trees; code waivers; and "amendments to almost every chapter of Austin's land development code," Levinski told Soifer. In arguing their case before Soifer, Leviniski and Bunch said that the Texas Open Meetings Act requires a public notice identifying these major changes to city standards and a public 'right to speak' on them before council granted the approvals. The Cox owners and Endeavor have the right to build high-rises — up to 725 feet tall — within 140 feet of Lady Bird Lake. The development would be "forever exempt from a plethora of water quality, parkland and lakeshore rules and regulations," according to the Save Our Springs Alliance. "The key here is the Statesman PUD went beyond zoning," Levinski said. "This didn't give sufficient notice to the public to say what is occurring with this zoning." Among other issues, he said the PUD included "non-zoning provisions, including items the council doesn't have authority over." There was a way the city could have described with greater detail what was occurring with the zoning case, "but they chose not to, and it's deceptive that they chose not to," Levinski said. The level of specificity "gets enhanced" when the issue involves matters of "significant public interest," Levinski said. "It's not enough to rely on the assumption that the general public may have knowledge of the subject matter." Dobson and Wilder Clark, however, told Soifer that the public notices complied with the Texas Open Meetings Act. The notices properly and adequately disclosed the subject of the PUD at various meetings on the council's printed public agenda, Dobson and Wilder Clark said. Moreover, all the details that Save Our Springs claims were lacking from the notice were available at "the click of a link" in backup materials on the council's online agenda, Wilder Clark said. "Not only did (the public) get to talk in meetings, but they got to submit written testimony," Wilder Clark said. She also noted that the council postponed meetings on the case. Showing slides of newspaper articles, Dobson said the proposed redevelopment of the Statesman site was front-page news. He said the case was "noticed out of the wazoo." "(Opponents) think this was done in the dark of night, with adequate notice to nobody," Dobson said. "In fact, the polar opposite happened." Dobson said no special notice was required, and opponents "didn't need it. They wrote letters, they spoke at length to (the city) Planning Commission and City Council. This did not take place under the shroud of secrecy," Dobson said. Countering the city's arguments, Bunch said the city "invented out of whole cloth" its position that it upheld the open meetings act, saying "there's no support for that in the entire body of open meetings cases." Early in the hearing, Dobson showed a photo of the current Statesman site "in all its glory," showing a low-slung building surrounded by a near vacant parking lot with lots of asphalt and concrete. Attorneys for the city and the developer stated that "virtually no one" opposes the proposed development, which may include condominiums, apartments, a hotel, office space and retail areas. Noting the site's popularity as a prime location for viewing the famed bat colony under the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge, they emphasized the new development will enhance the bat viewing area. Additionally, they said the project has the support of bat conservation groups. Last year, the Save Our Springs Alliance won a lawsuit contesting the city's creation of a special financing district, a so-called tax increment reinvestment zone, to fund infrastructure improvements within the proposed Statesman redevelopment project. A judge ruled that financing method unlawful. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Judge rules for city in case involving former Statesman site
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Florida-based Silver Airways ceases operations
June 11 (UPI) -- The Florida-based airline Silver Airways announced it is shutting down effective Wednesday. A holding company that bought Silver's assets decided to shut down the airline. Silver Airways said in a statement on Instagram, "We regret to inform you that we are ceasing operations as of today, June 11, 2025. In an attempt to restructure in bankruptcy, Silver entered into a transaction to sell its assets to another airline holding company, who unfortunately determined to not continue Silver's flight operations in Florida, the Bahamas and the Caribbean." The airline urged customers to not go to the airport. Silver said all credit card purchases "should be refunded through your credit card company or your travel agency." Silver Airways declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy Dec. 30, 2024. They said the decision would secure additional capital to do a financial restructuring they wanted to complete in the first quarter 2025. Silver Airways was among six American carriers approved for flights to Cuba in 2016 for the first time in more than half a century. The approval was part of the thawing of relations with Cuba during Obama administration.
