In last month’s Retiree Advocate, Steve Kofahl described the devastating impact of staffing cuts and rules changes on Social Security beneficiaries. While newly implemented, they are part of long-term attack on Social Security.

 

In 1983 the Cato Institute produced an article titled “Achieving a Leninist Strategy”. It called for “guerrilla warfare against both the current Social Security system and the coalition that supports it.” The long-term goal was to shift the $1.5 trillion we pay into Social Security each year out of Social Security and into IRA or similar private accounts.

Their strategy has had considerable success in reducing confidence in the fiscal soundness of Social Security. An April 2025 poll by the AP and University of Chicago found that 52% of those surveyed were not confident that Social Security benefits would be available when they need them.

 

The Social Security staffing cuts have nothing to do with reducing the federal deficit or debt. Social Security is completely self-funded. Administrative costs, including staffing, come from the contributions we make into Social Security. Currently administrative expenses for Social Security amount to a miniscule 0.9%. Were administrative expenses to be raised back to 1.26% where they have historically been, SSA could have the full staffing it needs to adequately serve the public and it wouldn’t impact the federal budget at all. But the cuts do serve the purpose of eroding confidence in Social Security’s ability to deliver benefits to those who have earned them. They are also likely to cut costs by deterring deserving beneficiaries from accessing their benefits.

Similarly, the DOGE theft of Social Security personal data in the name of rooting out fraud has nothing to do with saving billions in fraudulent Social

 

Security payments. DOGE has not been able to demonstrate that there is fraud because it is almost nonexistent in Social Security. A recent Social Security oversight report found an “improper payments” rate of 0.3%. They noted that only a sliver of that low rate is due to fraud. The focus on fraud reinforces the idea that Social Security is an entitlement program giving benefits to undeserving beneficiaries who haven’t earned them and that the federal government isn’t competent to administer the program. The data is also being used as a weapon by declaring people to be dead and thus denying them access to employment, banking and virtually all economic activity in the country.

When we first start working, we don’t know when we are going to retire, how long we will be retired or what financial resources we will have. We also do not know if we are going to become disabled and unable to work (only a third of workers have disability insurance be- side Social Security Disability) or if we will die young and leave dependents without a source of income. Social Security is not a retirement savings program, it is an insurance program.

 

Our contributions are pooled to ensure that all covered workers have a monthly benefit in all these situations.

 

Although by law Social Security can never go bankrupt, there is a future funding issue. In 1983 the stagflation of the 1970s caused a funding crisis for Social Security. It was solved primarily by benefit cuts. Projections indicated that the changes would take care of all future needs. What was not anticipated at the time was the theft of wages over the past 40 years. Almost none of the gains in productivity have gone to workers. Currently the Social Security Trust Fund surplus built up to provide for the surge of baby boomer retirement is projected to be depleted in 2033. This is not a new issue. It has been known for over 30 years. There will need to be either a 21% cut in benefits or an increase in revenue.

 

Overwhelming majorities of Americans favor increasing revenue over benefit cuts. The most obvious source of additional revenue is to “Scrap the Cap” and make those who have received most of the gain in productivity pay their fare share. Currently wages above $176,100 are not taxed for Social Security. Had the cap been eliminated 30 years ago when the looming funding issue was first identified it would have solved the entire problem. It would still solve a large portion of the problem and is essential to any realistic plan to avert benefit cuts.

 

We need to counter the assault on Social Security by exposing the lies that have eroded confidence in Social Security’s future and insist that the rich pay their fair share by scrapping the cap.

 

Steve Bauck is Co-Chair of PSARA's Social security Task Force and a member of PSARA's Executive Board.