Anyone who bets against Musk has a high chance of eating their words. The man is as determined as they come, has extreme pride in everything that he does, and has been a target of some of these agencies. They made an enemy out of the wrong man.
from my chair, if Doge does not show favoritism in any direction, and is objective in reporting the "current state" of affairs, they will have lots of support all around.
I dont feel any one party/person is without culpability in creating our deficit.
It will be painful, but is necessary.
yes I get SS and Medicare.
Like many, we have contributed during our 45 years of working. I am in favor of making adjustments to payouts, for those who are just entering the work force or maybe have been in for 10 years or less.
My bigger issue is true entitlements, which is a misnomer and a disservice to the populace. No one, especially illegal aliens, should get SS or medicare if they have not contributed.
Welfare fits this as well, to a large degree. The US pays people to not work, to have kids they cannot support, to keep fathers out of the nuclear family, to get food stamps but still allow drugs and alcohol in those homes. Doge can show the terrible waste and fraud in these welfare programs and then see what we can stomach "turning off".
I would love to see welfare completely overhauled. The point should be to encourage people to get their lives together, not to cultivate destructive habits on someone else's tax dollars.
To achieve this mindset — “encourage people to get their lives together” — one must start with the school system, obviously. Schools should be expected to produce literate, numerate people, who demonstrate the work ethic and have reasonable grounding in financial literacy before graduating.
Under Republican Congressional pressure, President Clinton did just that. Welfare plummeted and employment increased. All agreed it was a success. President Obama later reversed much of this. We are kind of back to square one in the mid 1990's.
That was implemented under Clinton with TANF. The big change was that it became workfare. Work or training was required. The program adjusted.
I often thought of OASDI becoming an income-based program, so total income is counted. That is, until I was close to 70 years old. The two of us have worked over 100 years paying for 3 generations of retirees.
I have no doubt that members of Congress will fight cuts every step of the way; they love their pork-powered fiefdoms. However, they also hate having their financial skullduggery being exposed to the light.
I can think of no better use of Musk’s “X” platform than to provide a weekly accounting of wasteful spending and ridiculous programs advocated by Congress Critters
I would love to see accountability on X. Every time a Congressman (or woman) disagrees with a cut, let's see how much wasteful spending he's voted for while in Congress. Make them squirm until they do what we want.
Social Security and Medicare are not to be included. I paid into Social Security for over 60 years. I still work full time and get raped on Medicare, and I still pay INTO Social Security at my age despite getting a monthly check. Raise the percentage contribution on everyone and get the “ disabled “ out of social security.
Yet every yo-yo out there always proposes cutting benefits as one of the first steps. Talking heads ask” Why is the government giving me money, I am rich?” Well, perhaps the billionaire does not need the money.
Change it for the next generation. The changes they have already made for my generation are not fair.
But benefits are indexed now, and not just to CPI but to increases in average earnings. So that ain’t happening.
I’d be happy if they simply changed the increase for,USA to go up with CPI rather than average earnings. That one fix is not cutting anyone’s benefits, and alone would solve almost 80% of the SS shortfall.
This is a perfect example of why change is so difficult. You are not getting "raped" by medicare, it is a program dooomed to failure from its inception and raises healthcare costs for all those not on it. SS? How much did you pay in and what benefit are you receiving? Raising contribution % and amount does little to solve the problem unless you want to be France or Italy and have the gov make the US a third world country. This is so very much the "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that man behind the tree" thinking. NOTHING will be improved if entitlements are not included and yes welfare programs like SS and Medicare must be included, look at the numbers. In short order the whole problem will be these programs and debt service. And yes I get SS and Medicare and am shocked at the benefits paid to me. I am more appalled at those who think they should bankrupt the budget for their benefit.
It would be hard to take people off SS and Medicare—some people depend on it, like David said. But as I look ahead to when I would start drawing SS ~45 years down the road, I'm not sure there's going to be anything left for me. It seems like either we pull the plug on it now or wait for it to combust later. Either way people get cheated, but maybe it could be phased out in a way fewer people get cheated out everything they put it.
But like I said, I'm a long way from SS and Medicare, so I'd love to hear thoughts from others.
If the transition plan is long enough the math should work. If you give people in the middle years (paid in 20 years with 24 years more to go) a 'choice', they could all do the personal math to see what decision is best for them. You could also give them a make-up bonus for contributions already made. The ROI on the current system is so bad only those that have no way out would stay in.
The only plans where the ROI on a program like this is higher are ones that allow contributors to invest in a stock market index option with some portion of their contributions.
The system needs to return to its original state which was to supplement a worker who contributed to the fund an income when they retire. That pie has been sliced up the a to accommodate a higher percentage of non contributors, a high percentage of people who are milking the system because of their own self destructive habits. A friend gets 2K a month for disability because he’s obese, self inflicted, and a drug user. His wife gets 1K a month as his caregiver. Multiple that by a couple million. A hopeless situation for us tax paying workers.
"some people depend on it... - quite true. To be more precise, 2 of 3 seniors depend on Social Security for most of their income. For 1 in 7 seniors, Social Security is 90%+ of their income. Without it, the poverty rate for seniors would be about 40% (it's currently 10%).
Medicare and SS aren't welfare the same way the other dozens of free-stuff programs are. I want my money back that I paid into the Ponzi scheme. All other welfare programs could be eliminated to pay SS and Medicare that we recipients paid for over many years.
Correct - Social Security is a self-funding program, unlike welfare payments. Its looming insolvency is due mostly to people living longer and changing demographics - more people drawing benefits and fewer workers paying in.
No that’s not entirely correct. Non contributing people are taking the money intended for contributions made by workers. They’ve divided up SS to a lot more programs that don’t involve worker contributions.
…and the fact that benefits are going up with average wages, rather than simply with CPI. Change this one thing and you address almost 80% of the funding gap right there.
They now tax my social security and RAPE me on Medicare. I pay 4x as much as someone who did not save and does not work. I also get ducked by IRMAA Do they pay my doctor 4x as much? I am not bankrupting the budget. I want the money I paid in. It was never a welfare program but a retirement plan.
Actually, the Supreme Court rule in 1937 that Social Security was NOT a retirement plan but simply an excise tax.
In 1960 the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding right to their Social Security benefits, and that it can be cut or eliminated by an act of Congress. They further defined it as a payroll tax coupled with a welfare system.
It became a welfare plan. Btw, the reason there is a limit on the amount “ taxed “ is because the government was afraid that people would put more in and thus the government would be forced to pay more out at retirement age. Limited contributions to limit benefits. Want to tax all my income - increase my benefit.
You have a point Ts Blue. But I feel for the person who lived their life and depends on it. Change is needed. Perhaps a long-term switchover to mandated savings outside government paws would work. Do not know. 🤷♂️
Go down to a SS building and look at all the able bodied people under the age of 50 standing in line waiting for their free handouts. That’ll change your mind about the solvency of SS. These people never contribute to our social ills except in a negative way.
I agreee with you 1000% that no one (well, except perhaps a few in the top 0.1%j are getting “raped” by Medicare.
But your implicit claim about SS is not nearly as well founded. The return on SS versus having invested the “contribution” money yourself is now quite poor for the highest income earners.
We probably agree that at minimum they should change the SS benefit formula to only increase with CPI, not with the increase in average wages.
SSDI and SSI were written into law in 1965. Those programs are entrenched. What has happened in the past 5 years is that Judges have changed the number of years a beneficiary’s approval lasts until they need to apply again- usually a 3 year process that keeps many people employed!
My understanding of the theory of operation of DOGE is that there are now numerous regulations that recent Supreme Court decisions have rendered unconstitutional and therefore can and should be scrapped. There must be entire armies of bureaucrats who (ostensibly) have “jobs” related to those regulations. No more regulation = no more job.
If congress wants to keep the bureaucracy, it will have to legislate.
How much money will be saved by this regulatory bush-hogging remains to be seen, but it needs to be done no matter what since we are being smothered by illegal regulation.
Yes! I hope the government shrinks—but even if Congress just legislates a bunch of stuff into law, at least it's a law and not scores of bureaucrats making endless regulations.
Yes Lon. Agreed. Cost cutting involves excising some departments, transferring many functions to the States, and thinning. The unconstitutionality of large sections of the bureaucracy can be used for excising, transfers, and thinning!
Agreed. I've not researched the full implications of the reversal of the Chevron Deference, but I know it's huge. Constitutional lawyers did warn, however, that despite it's reversal, we were likely to witness little-to-no change of what is (vs would could have been). My understanding is that the Chevron Deference decision gave Congress the ability to allocate it's constitutional duties to unelected bureaucrats in government agencies, thereby creating the flood of "regulations" ruining our nation and our lives. Those regulations have made the American Dream more and more difficult while paving the path for a capitalist society which is primarily corporatism (aka cronyism). If I understand it correctly (again, need more research), every single entity created with regards to the Chevron Deference would need to be challenged before SCOTUS to scrap it... otherwise, even though now illegal, it's a perpetual machine. I get the impression that would be a LOT of cases going before SCOTUS. But, no better day to begin than TODAY. Of course, there's also the possibility of a defunding approach. I've heard little of that, but it has peaked my interest... I'll be doing my research.
The bottom line is that Congress has to be more clear in the enabling legislation they pass, so the SCOTUS is not left guessing what they meant when they phrased the Law as they did, and passed it on to an agency to create regulations. Those regulations given to the Court to decide a case need a study of the original law which often doesn’t provide an answer.
Congress has to pass what is called “enabling legislation” which gives the agency the authority to pass rules and regulations. That has been the legal operation of the Administrative State for decades. Probably since FDR, maybe Ike.
Social Security and Medicare are not "entitlement" programs. Those who have had decades of paychecks reduced by deductions are legitimately entitled to get what they paid for. We should reserve the use of "entitlement" with its negative connotation, to those programs that pay our tax dollars to people who tap into the system without ever paying into the system.
Start with Social Security. You have the luxury of an employee portion and an employer portion. Place the employee portion in a ROTH IRA. Let the employer portion fund current SSI recipients until you wean everyone off the program. Does it matter if it takes 20, 30, 40 years? It will be much faster if you give 45 year olds a choice. If they look at the ROI they will opt out in a flash.
The SSI recipients are currently being funded by the general fund. The Trust fund is about to run dry in 2029 for everyone. Per SSA law, benefits will be cut 25% no matter how much a person contributed. (The Trust Fund was used for other expenditures through the decades. Fo the IRA plan to work, it would needed to be generational, ie, over 70 would receive back all FICA contributions in today’s dollars, to be added to a their IRA’s.
Michelle, what if you do not fund any individuals above 55? Just let them remain in the program as is and use the IRA's prospectively only. For those that choose between 55-35 and anyone below 35 you start funding the IRA for them out of their payroll deductions.
Actually you can, because Social Security is self-funding (until it isn't). So, theoretically, Congress could balance the budget and just let Social Security benefits decline in around 2034.
I am not sure about that Chris although I agree they need to be reformed. Maybe we first balance the budget. Then we reform SS and Medicare. Of course, if that is impossible...
Just be careful with the words "balance the budget". Technically, the gov could raise taxes to "balance the budget". What we NEED are fiscal restraints which prevent extreme taxes and also keep spending within the means of what is being collected.
It’s meaning is entitled under law, the Social Security Act of 1950, Title II or Title XVI, and all the regulations following it, like age, years worked, etc. One program is entitlements due to age or poverty- SSI. It is federal welfare under regulations having the weight of law. I also think that there should be a distinction in the Titles.
Welfare and food stamps fall under Title XX in NJ, which is Poverty law.
MANY things can be eliminated that would pay SS and Medicare benefits to those entitled to receive them. E.g. Money to foreign countries, slash the military budget, end all freebies to illegals, end all welfare....so many things could be eliminated. So what if it's a hardship?
You assume that Congress agrees with Elon and Trump that government must be "right"sized.
I doubt the truth of that. Folks do not often vote to cut their own paychecks and sinecures.
Most in Congress likely believe government is too small. Those are their friends and allies, those bureaucrats in the million-and-one federal agencies. They work together to create regulations and enabling legislation.
DOGE should be given the 80 thousand auditors proposed for the IRS . Give them two years to audit every agency , including the IRS , with recommendations for criminal referrals via Pam Bondie of the DOJ for , I am sure, all the Embezzling by Gov. workers and their friends via gov. contracts etc. Out right fraud by Medical systems on the Gov. run healthcare IE obamacare , SS medicare and medicaid . OH the list is long . We know now and have known for a long time the BILLIONS of fraud in the DOD system . DOD hasn't been able to pass an audit since WWII.
Any politician , Gov. worker or Gov. contractor who stands in the way or even attempts to should be referred to the DOJ for investigation and charged , at the least , with obstruction of Justice.
" And that's all I have to say about that" Jenny .
You're 100% right, every agency needs an audit. Although I'd like to see DOGE fire those 80,000 IRS auditors instead of use them (then again, I have a cynical view of the IRS).
I also have my concerns about the IRS . I don't know if the 80K have been hired but I would not have them working for the IRS . They would be used for DOGE . I don't think it would take 80K but in order to do the job of auditing the Gov. in two years it would take more than a few doing the job. I have little trust in the voting population of the USA not to flip back to the dem.s when the effect of the necessary cut in spending that is needed to get the Gov. under control. There are a lot of people living mainly off the Gov. that just might vote the Republicans out once again and put a stop to the effort to save the USA.
I agree with your concern. We are having to deal with several million Gov workers now expecting them to do at least somewhat right by our paying their salaries. When found to not being able and in some cases engaging in criminal actions IE collusion, Fraud, criminal embezzlement ETC ETC . then they are fired and possibly charged for criminal activity.
BRAC worked because it was a disagreement over means ("which bases should be close") rather than over ends ("what, close bases? You're insane!") Both parties agreed the current military base system was inefficient, and designed a process to incentivize themselves to do what both knew needed doing. (The parties could still work together in the 80's.)
DOGE is fundamentally different. The Democratic party most assuredly does NOT believe there are too many government programs or bureaucrats. In fact, they want MORE government programs, not fewer. Thus this is a disagreement not over how to achieve a shared goal (means) but over what the goal ought to be (ends). The BRAC process will not work for this exact reason.
This is a really important point, but the advantage here is that this can all be done in the first two years of Trump’s term with Republican legislators. You’re right that this will not get support from Democrats so the plan moving forward should be to push this through on a party line vote.
A plus to the two year window with control of all three branches of Fed. Gov. It will also expose the RINOs via all areas of the information flow . The legacy media , as it is being labeled now, cannot control information as has been the case before You , Rogan,Pool, Bongino, Crowder . Thank goodness I believe this group now has more influence than the CNN's,NBC,ABC,MSNBC, NPR etc etc.
Agreed. You all point to the elephant in the room -- how to sustain cuts in the long term. Should be a part of the cutting process and will require legislation. Perhaps if we succeed our next election in 2028 will be about locking in the savings and success. But first we need to succeed so we can win in 2026.
Is there anyone on Team Trump who knows the Civil Service laws inside out? If Trump wants to fire government employees and doesn't follow the law, the employees or their union will take the government to court, and the cost-savings could be blocked by lawsuits.
I am sure everyone who works in one agency knows the regulations by heart, and knows where to find the court cases they have won and lost. I’m sure they all have the CFR on their desks too.
I am predicting that the government employees in HR departments who know the civil service rules will do their best to undermine any efforts to shrink the number of government employees. The D.O.G.E. people need to know how to work around them.
Chris, I agree DOGE will need legislatively-delivered backing as you mention but I hope the cuts will not simply be in the 100s of billions. I am less than an amateur but using tools like chatGPT one can come up with 2T annual savings quite easily. We have expenditures of 6.7T with about 2.8 for Social Security and Medicare leaving 3.9T. If one leaves those areas alone potential savings are in the 3.9T area. That area is ripe for cuts. Especially if one moves to zero-base budgeting. If we can add 1/2T in tariffs (on the income side), expand the economy 12% in 2 years (adding another 1/2T on the revenue side) and cut the 3.9T area down to 2.9T then the deficit goes down 2T and we have no deficit at all and can start repaying our debt. Thinking this through a bit further, we have many potential cuts. Maybe we can cut the 3.9T expense side even more than 1T. Although I am no expert (perhaps an advantage for me) it would appear cuts can be done in three ways: by winding down unnecessary departments such as the DOE (excising) by moving Federal departments to the state level (transfer), and by streamlining and killing redundancy in departments (thinning). Of course help is needed from congress and the executive branch as you point out.
I understand Javier Milei did a lot of excising of departments in Argentina. But we can transfer services to the States too. That gives us an avenue not available to other countries. States can surely deliver services and run them at a fraction of the cost of the Feds. The States are already being warned to prepare for taking over Fed services by the incoming administration! All in all, I am cautiously optimistic.
Milei is a very interesting test case from the reporting that I’ve read. He cut approximately 1/3 of the federal government in Argentina. This is massive, and while I would love to see it replicated in the United States, my initial thought is that it required decades of crisis in Argentina, in order for the public to be willing to risk significant cuts
True Chris. What's even more amazing though are the results in only one year!
But we did get a reasonable mandate and we have two houses and the executive branch. Plus our approach does not need to be as extreme as Milei's. We have options, like transferring services to the States, which he did not have. But we'll see. We have a historic opportunity. I hope we do not blow it. 🙏
Interesting. Cutting 1T would be a huge success for DOGE. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems like attacking it aggressively would lead to massive cuts. Of course, Congress would still have to pass the aggressive cuts—but at least there's a potential path forward.
A problem is that most of those who have tried are from the private sector and try to use private sector methods, but this is the public sector where different rules, regulations and methods apply.
For example in the private sector profit is a measure of success or failure but this does not exist in the public sector (though some would argue it should be).
Increase in salary in the private sector is based upon increased profit and efficiency but in the bureaucracy moving up in the bureaucratic hierarchy, and increased salary, is based upon the number of people below you in the hierarchy, so there is no incentive to decrease the number of employees and no incentive to increase efficiency.
Not sure that Congress, and specifically the Republicans, have the guts.
Agreed
Any attempt will be filibustered.
Luckily it can be done on reconciliation and avoid the filibuster. But will still need 50 votes in the Senate!
A BRAC-like commission and fast-track rules can be done on reconciliation?!?
I believe so
Rufo, your white supremacist authoritarianism is showing again. 😅😂🤣
Funny , but the jokes on you.
They better find some guts if they don’t have any. We the people demand they do the right thing for we the people!
Anyone who bets against Musk has a high chance of eating their words. The man is as determined as they come, has extreme pride in everything that he does, and has been a target of some of these agencies. They made an enemy out of the wrong man.
He might have to sleep in the white house for the next two years - like he did at Tesla to make it a success!
The agencies will be much more fearful if he sleeps in their headquarters.
I wouldn't be surprised if he did. 😅
Musk is indeed ruthless when it comes to workforces and that is why he will succeed while encountering the very entrenched Blob.
from my chair, if Doge does not show favoritism in any direction, and is objective in reporting the "current state" of affairs, they will have lots of support all around.
I dont feel any one party/person is without culpability in creating our deficit.
It will be painful, but is necessary.
yes I get SS and Medicare.
Like many, we have contributed during our 45 years of working. I am in favor of making adjustments to payouts, for those who are just entering the work force or maybe have been in for 10 years or less.
My bigger issue is true entitlements, which is a misnomer and a disservice to the populace. No one, especially illegal aliens, should get SS or medicare if they have not contributed.
Welfare fits this as well, to a large degree. The US pays people to not work, to have kids they cannot support, to keep fathers out of the nuclear family, to get food stamps but still allow drugs and alcohol in those homes. Doge can show the terrible waste and fraud in these welfare programs and then see what we can stomach "turning off".
I would love to see welfare completely overhauled. The point should be to encourage people to get their lives together, not to cultivate destructive habits on someone else's tax dollars.
To achieve this mindset — “encourage people to get their lives together” — one must start with the school system, obviously. Schools should be expected to produce literate, numerate people, who demonstrate the work ethic and have reasonable grounding in financial literacy before graduating.
Bravo.
Under Republican Congressional pressure, President Clinton did just that. Welfare plummeted and employment increased. All agreed it was a success. President Obama later reversed much of this. We are kind of back to square one in the mid 1990's.
That was implemented under Clinton with TANF. The big change was that it became workfare. Work or training was required. The program adjusted.
I often thought of OASDI becoming an income-based program, so total income is counted. That is, until I was close to 70 years old. The two of us have worked over 100 years paying for 3 generations of retirees.
What happened to the "Welfare to Work" program that was begun in the 90s under the Clinton presidency? Is that a model worth emulating?
It still exists. In fact it has been built up in it’s education system, which is shared with unemployment beneficiaries with no other income.
Obama killed it, is what happened…
I have no doubt that members of Congress will fight cuts every step of the way; they love their pork-powered fiefdoms. However, they also hate having their financial skullduggery being exposed to the light.
I can think of no better use of Musk’s “X” platform than to provide a weekly accounting of wasteful spending and ridiculous programs advocated by Congress Critters
I would love to see accountability on X. Every time a Congressman (or woman) disagrees with a cut, let's see how much wasteful spending he's voted for while in Congress. Make them squirm until they do what we want.
Yes, DubiousWisdom. Spotlights are useful and with X we finally have massive spotlights.
Social Security and Medicare are not to be included. I paid into Social Security for over 60 years. I still work full time and get raped on Medicare, and I still pay INTO Social Security at my age despite getting a monthly check. Raise the percentage contribution on everyone and get the “ disabled “ out of social security.
Trump has already made clear that he won’t touch Social Security and Medicare
Yet every yo-yo out there always proposes cutting benefits as one of the first steps. Talking heads ask” Why is the government giving me money, I am rich?” Well, perhaps the billionaire does not need the money.
Change it for the next generation. The changes they have already made for my generation are not fair.
Senator Proxmire.once declared that they would not cut Social Security, they would just inflate the “benefits “ into worthlessness.
But benefits are indexed now, and not just to CPI but to increases in average earnings. So that ain’t happening.
I’d be happy if they simply changed the increase for,USA to go up with CPI rather than average earnings. That one fix is not cutting anyone’s benefits, and alone would solve almost 80% of the SS shortfall.
This is a perfect example of why change is so difficult. You are not getting "raped" by medicare, it is a program dooomed to failure from its inception and raises healthcare costs for all those not on it. SS? How much did you pay in and what benefit are you receiving? Raising contribution % and amount does little to solve the problem unless you want to be France or Italy and have the gov make the US a third world country. This is so very much the "don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that man behind the tree" thinking. NOTHING will be improved if entitlements are not included and yes welfare programs like SS and Medicare must be included, look at the numbers. In short order the whole problem will be these programs and debt service. And yes I get SS and Medicare and am shocked at the benefits paid to me. I am more appalled at those who think they should bankrupt the budget for their benefit.
It would be hard to take people off SS and Medicare—some people depend on it, like David said. But as I look ahead to when I would start drawing SS ~45 years down the road, I'm not sure there's going to be anything left for me. It seems like either we pull the plug on it now or wait for it to combust later. Either way people get cheated, but maybe it could be phased out in a way fewer people get cheated out everything they put it.
But like I said, I'm a long way from SS and Medicare, so I'd love to hear thoughts from others.
If the transition plan is long enough the math should work. If you give people in the middle years (paid in 20 years with 24 years more to go) a 'choice', they could all do the personal math to see what decision is best for them. You could also give them a make-up bonus for contributions already made. The ROI on the current system is so bad only those that have no way out would stay in.
The only plans where the ROI on a program like this is higher are ones that allow contributors to invest in a stock market index option with some portion of their contributions.
The system needs to return to its original state which was to supplement a worker who contributed to the fund an income when they retire. That pie has been sliced up the a to accommodate a higher percentage of non contributors, a high percentage of people who are milking the system because of their own self destructive habits. A friend gets 2K a month for disability because he’s obese, self inflicted, and a drug user. His wife gets 1K a month as his caregiver. Multiple that by a couple million. A hopeless situation for us tax paying workers.
"some people depend on it... - quite true. To be more precise, 2 of 3 seniors depend on Social Security for most of their income. For 1 in 7 seniors, Social Security is 90%+ of their income. Without it, the poverty rate for seniors would be about 40% (it's currently 10%).
Medicare and SS aren't welfare the same way the other dozens of free-stuff programs are. I want my money back that I paid into the Ponzi scheme. All other welfare programs could be eliminated to pay SS and Medicare that we recipients paid for over many years.
Correct - Social Security is a self-funding program, unlike welfare payments. Its looming insolvency is due mostly to people living longer and changing demographics - more people drawing benefits and fewer workers paying in.
No that’s not entirely correct. Non contributing people are taking the money intended for contributions made by workers. They’ve divided up SS to a lot more programs that don’t involve worker contributions.
…and the fact that benefits are going up with average wages, rather than simply with CPI. Change this one thing and you address almost 80% of the funding gap right there.
They now tax my social security and RAPE me on Medicare. I pay 4x as much as someone who did not save and does not work. I also get ducked by IRMAA Do they pay my doctor 4x as much? I am not bankrupting the budget. I want the money I paid in. It was never a welfare program but a retirement plan.
Actually, the Supreme Court rule in 1937 that Social Security was NOT a retirement plan but simply an excise tax.
In 1960 the Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding right to their Social Security benefits, and that it can be cut or eliminated by an act of Congress. They further defined it as a payroll tax coupled with a welfare system.
Unfortunately it was both a welfare program OR a retirement plan depending upon the particular argument of the moment.
It became a welfare plan. Btw, the reason there is a limit on the amount “ taxed “ is because the government was afraid that people would put more in and thus the government would be forced to pay more out at retirement age. Limited contributions to limit benefits. Want to tax all my income - increase my benefit.
For SS you are mostly correct.
For Medicare you are mostly incorrect.
And unlike SS, Medicare has not now for decades, if ever, been funded by its dedicated taxes.
You have a point Ts Blue. But I feel for the person who lived their life and depends on it. Change is needed. Perhaps a long-term switchover to mandated savings outside government paws would work. Do not know. 🤷♂️
Go down to a SS building and look at all the able bodied people under the age of 50 standing in line waiting for their free handouts. That’ll change your mind about the solvency of SS. These people never contribute to our social ills except in a negative way.
I agreee with you 1000% that no one (well, except perhaps a few in the top 0.1%j are getting “raped” by Medicare.
But your implicit claim about SS is not nearly as well founded. The return on SS versus having invested the “contribution” money yourself is now quite poor for the highest income earners.
We probably agree that at minimum they should change the SS benefit formula to only increase with CPI, not with the increase in average wages.
Change it, if you want to change it, for those under 30.
SSDI and SSI were written into law in 1965. Those programs are entrenched. What has happened in the past 5 years is that Judges have changed the number of years a beneficiary’s approval lasts until they need to apply again- usually a 3 year process that keeps many people employed!
My understanding of the theory of operation of DOGE is that there are now numerous regulations that recent Supreme Court decisions have rendered unconstitutional and therefore can and should be scrapped. There must be entire armies of bureaucrats who (ostensibly) have “jobs” related to those regulations. No more regulation = no more job.
If congress wants to keep the bureaucracy, it will have to legislate.
How much money will be saved by this regulatory bush-hogging remains to be seen, but it needs to be done no matter what since we are being smothered by illegal regulation.
Yes! I hope the government shrinks—but even if Congress just legislates a bunch of stuff into law, at least it's a law and not scores of bureaucrats making endless regulations.
Yes Lon. Agreed. Cost cutting involves excising some departments, transferring many functions to the States, and thinning. The unconstitutionality of large sections of the bureaucracy can be used for excising, transfers, and thinning!
Agreed. I've not researched the full implications of the reversal of the Chevron Deference, but I know it's huge. Constitutional lawyers did warn, however, that despite it's reversal, we were likely to witness little-to-no change of what is (vs would could have been). My understanding is that the Chevron Deference decision gave Congress the ability to allocate it's constitutional duties to unelected bureaucrats in government agencies, thereby creating the flood of "regulations" ruining our nation and our lives. Those regulations have made the American Dream more and more difficult while paving the path for a capitalist society which is primarily corporatism (aka cronyism). If I understand it correctly (again, need more research), every single entity created with regards to the Chevron Deference would need to be challenged before SCOTUS to scrap it... otherwise, even though now illegal, it's a perpetual machine. I get the impression that would be a LOT of cases going before SCOTUS. But, no better day to begin than TODAY. Of course, there's also the possibility of a defunding approach. I've heard little of that, but it has peaked my interest... I'll be doing my research.
The bottom line is that Congress has to be more clear in the enabling legislation they pass, so the SCOTUS is not left guessing what they meant when they phrased the Law as they did, and passed it on to an agency to create regulations. Those regulations given to the Court to decide a case need a study of the original law which often doesn’t provide an answer.
I believe the bottom line is that it’s unconstitutional for unelected bureaucrats to create ANY regulations.
Congress has to pass what is called “enabling legislation” which gives the agency the authority to pass rules and regulations. That has been the legal operation of the Administrative State for decades. Probably since FDR, maybe Ike.
AMEN!
Social Security and Medicare are not "entitlement" programs. Those who have had decades of paychecks reduced by deductions are legitimately entitled to get what they paid for. We should reserve the use of "entitlement" with its negative connotation, to those programs that pay our tax dollars to people who tap into the system without ever paying into the system.
That’s true in one sense, but in another sense, we can’t have a balanced fiscal situation unless we eventually reform those programs.
Start with Social Security. You have the luxury of an employee portion and an employer portion. Place the employee portion in a ROTH IRA. Let the employer portion fund current SSI recipients until you wean everyone off the program. Does it matter if it takes 20, 30, 40 years? It will be much faster if you give 45 year olds a choice. If they look at the ROI they will opt out in a flash.
You need a huge bridge loan in the trillions, because current contributions go right out the door to pay benefits.
The SSI recipients are currently being funded by the general fund. The Trust fund is about to run dry in 2029 for everyone. Per SSA law, benefits will be cut 25% no matter how much a person contributed. (The Trust Fund was used for other expenditures through the decades. Fo the IRA plan to work, it would needed to be generational, ie, over 70 would receive back all FICA contributions in today’s dollars, to be added to a their IRA’s.
Michelle, what if you do not fund any individuals above 55? Just let them remain in the program as is and use the IRA's prospectively only. For those that choose between 55-35 and anyone below 35 you start funding the IRA for them out of their payroll deductions.
Actually you can, because Social Security is self-funding (until it isn't). So, theoretically, Congress could balance the budget and just let Social Security benefits decline in around 2034.
Too soon.
I am not sure about that Chris although I agree they need to be reformed. Maybe we first balance the budget. Then we reform SS and Medicare. Of course, if that is impossible...
perhaps it is.
Just be careful with the words "balance the budget". Technically, the gov could raise taxes to "balance the budget". What we NEED are fiscal restraints which prevent extreme taxes and also keep spending within the means of what is being collected.
Absolutely!
The Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that Social Security is indeed a welfare program coupled with an excise tax. Fleming vs. Nestor.
Yet it is written into law and regulations with the power of law.
Social Security programs, that is.
The Supreme Court also ruled in 1973 that abortion was a constitutional right.
Based on a pervasive right to privacy.
^^^ THIS ^^^
It’s meaning is entitled under law, the Social Security Act of 1950, Title II or Title XVI, and all the regulations following it, like age, years worked, etc. One program is entitlements due to age or poverty- SSI. It is federal welfare under regulations having the weight of law. I also think that there should be a distinction in the Titles.
Welfare and food stamps fall under Title XX in NJ, which is Poverty law.
MANY things can be eliminated that would pay SS and Medicare benefits to those entitled to receive them. E.g. Money to foreign countries, slash the military budget, end all freebies to illegals, end all welfare....so many things could be eliminated. So what if it's a hardship?
Money to foreign countries is not even a drop in the bucket.
It's just an example of what could be cut IN ADDITION TO so many other areas.
You assume that Congress agrees with Elon and Trump that government must be "right"sized.
I doubt the truth of that. Folks do not often vote to cut their own paychecks and sinecures.
Most in Congress likely believe government is too small. Those are their friends and allies, those bureaucrats in the million-and-one federal agencies. They work together to create regulations and enabling legislation.
Right. I don’t assume it; even Republicans have always failed to cut the size of government – for a reason
It does cut the work of Congress for the bureaucrats to create the “law” that is, regs.
I hope not. Actually, it is more likely they are: do as I say, not as I do.
DOGE should be given the 80 thousand auditors proposed for the IRS . Give them two years to audit every agency , including the IRS , with recommendations for criminal referrals via Pam Bondie of the DOJ for , I am sure, all the Embezzling by Gov. workers and their friends via gov. contracts etc. Out right fraud by Medical systems on the Gov. run healthcare IE obamacare , SS medicare and medicaid . OH the list is long . We know now and have known for a long time the BILLIONS of fraud in the DOD system . DOD hasn't been able to pass an audit since WWII.
Any politician , Gov. worker or Gov. contractor who stands in the way or even attempts to should be referred to the DOJ for investigation and charged , at the least , with obstruction of Justice.
" And that's all I have to say about that" Jenny .
You're 100% right, every agency needs an audit. Although I'd like to see DOGE fire those 80,000 IRS auditors instead of use them (then again, I have a cynical view of the IRS).
I also have my concerns about the IRS . I don't know if the 80K have been hired but I would not have them working for the IRS . They would be used for DOGE . I don't think it would take 80K but in order to do the job of auditing the Gov. in two years it would take more than a few doing the job. I have little trust in the voting population of the USA not to flip back to the dem.s when the effect of the necessary cut in spending that is needed to get the Gov. under control. There are a lot of people living mainly off the Gov. that just might vote the Republicans out once again and put a stop to the effort to save the USA.
Sounds interesting but I am not sure I would trust 80,000 people to do anything right.
I agree with your concern. We are having to deal with several million Gov workers now expecting them to do at least somewhat right by our paying their salaries. When found to not being able and in some cases engaging in criminal actions IE collusion, Fraud, criminal embezzlement ETC ETC . then they are fired and possibly charged for criminal activity.
BRAC worked because it was a disagreement over means ("which bases should be close") rather than over ends ("what, close bases? You're insane!") Both parties agreed the current military base system was inefficient, and designed a process to incentivize themselves to do what both knew needed doing. (The parties could still work together in the 80's.)
DOGE is fundamentally different. The Democratic party most assuredly does NOT believe there are too many government programs or bureaucrats. In fact, they want MORE government programs, not fewer. Thus this is a disagreement not over how to achieve a shared goal (means) but over what the goal ought to be (ends). The BRAC process will not work for this exact reason.
This is a really important point, but the advantage here is that this can all be done in the first two years of Trump’s term with Republican legislators. You’re right that this will not get support from Democrats so the plan moving forward should be to push this through on a party line vote.
A plus to the two year window with control of all three branches of Fed. Gov. It will also expose the RINOs via all areas of the information flow . The legacy media , as it is being labeled now, cannot control information as has been the case before You , Rogan,Pool, Bongino, Crowder . Thank goodness I believe this group now has more influence than the CNN's,NBC,ABC,MSNBC, NPR etc etc.
Filibuster. Unless the GOP is willing to nuke it (and I see no evidence they are despite the fact hat I think they should) they are not serious.
I don’t think that BRAC is the best example for government cost cutting.
A lot of really horrible decisions came out of that with regard to Military readiness.
Then, you make the observation that costs continue to soar in DoD after BRAC.
If Congress won’t stop overspending, the cuts won’t be noticeable/helpful anyway.
Very true. Lots of cuts now might be a temporary fix, but there needs to be a mindset shift in Congress to make a lasting difference.
Agreed. You all point to the elephant in the room -- how to sustain cuts in the long term. Should be a part of the cutting process and will require legislation. Perhaps if we succeed our next election in 2028 will be about locking in the savings and success. But first we need to succeed so we can win in 2026.
They should embrace celebrating Festivus every year and dig into the annual release of Rand Paul's report
Is there anyone on Team Trump who knows the Civil Service laws inside out? If Trump wants to fire government employees and doesn't follow the law, the employees or their union will take the government to court, and the cost-savings could be blocked by lawsuits.
I am sure everyone who works in one agency knows the regulations by heart, and knows where to find the court cases they have won and lost. I’m sure they all have the CFR on their desks too.
I am predicting that the government employees in HR departments who know the civil service rules will do their best to undermine any efforts to shrink the number of government employees. The D.O.G.E. people need to know how to work around them.
Chris, I agree DOGE will need legislatively-delivered backing as you mention but I hope the cuts will not simply be in the 100s of billions. I am less than an amateur but using tools like chatGPT one can come up with 2T annual savings quite easily. We have expenditures of 6.7T with about 2.8 for Social Security and Medicare leaving 3.9T. If one leaves those areas alone potential savings are in the 3.9T area. That area is ripe for cuts. Especially if one moves to zero-base budgeting. If we can add 1/2T in tariffs (on the income side), expand the economy 12% in 2 years (adding another 1/2T on the revenue side) and cut the 3.9T area down to 2.9T then the deficit goes down 2T and we have no deficit at all and can start repaying our debt. Thinking this through a bit further, we have many potential cuts. Maybe we can cut the 3.9T expense side even more than 1T. Although I am no expert (perhaps an advantage for me) it would appear cuts can be done in three ways: by winding down unnecessary departments such as the DOE (excising) by moving Federal departments to the state level (transfer), and by streamlining and killing redundancy in departments (thinning). Of course help is needed from congress and the executive branch as you point out.
I understand Javier Milei did a lot of excising of departments in Argentina. But we can transfer services to the States too. That gives us an avenue not available to other countries. States can surely deliver services and run them at a fraction of the cost of the Feds. The States are already being warned to prepare for taking over Fed services by the incoming administration! All in all, I am cautiously optimistic.
Milei is a very interesting test case from the reporting that I’ve read. He cut approximately 1/3 of the federal government in Argentina. This is massive, and while I would love to see it replicated in the United States, my initial thought is that it required decades of crisis in Argentina, in order for the public to be willing to risk significant cuts
True Chris. What's even more amazing though are the results in only one year!
But we did get a reasonable mandate and we have two houses and the executive branch. Plus our approach does not need to be as extreme as Milei's. We have options, like transferring services to the States, which he did not have. But we'll see. We have a historic opportunity. I hope we do not blow it. 🙏
Interesting. Cutting 1T would be a huge success for DOGE. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems like attacking it aggressively would lead to massive cuts. Of course, Congress would still have to pass the aggressive cuts—but at least there's a potential path forward.
Good luck trying to reduce the bureaucracy.
Many have tried and failed.
A problem is that most of those who have tried are from the private sector and try to use private sector methods, but this is the public sector where different rules, regulations and methods apply.
For example in the private sector profit is a measure of success or failure but this does not exist in the public sector (though some would argue it should be).
Increase in salary in the private sector is based upon increased profit and efficiency but in the bureaucracy moving up in the bureaucratic hierarchy, and increased salary, is based upon the number of people below you in the hierarchy, so there is no incentive to decrease the number of employees and no incentive to increase efficiency.