Wednesday, March 26, 2025

‘Tesla Takedown’ Protesters Planning ‘Biggest Day Of Action’

Organizers are calling for 500 demonstrations at all 277 Tesla showrooms, as well as Supercharger stations, on March 29th.

By Andrew J. Hawkins
March 23, 2025
Source: The Verge


Tesla protesters are planning their “biggest day of action” yet, aiming for 500 demonstrations at Tesla showrooms across the world on March 29th, organizers said during a mobilizing call Wednesday.

The protests started at a handful of Tesla locations in early February, and has grown to hundreds of locations across the world, as more people have come out to demonstrate against CEO Elon Musk’s dismantling of the federal government. Waving signs and chanting slogans, the so-called Tesla Takedown protesters have become a flashpoint for opposition to Musk’s actions to eliminate federal aid programs and fire tens of thousands of government employees as the head of DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency.

There have also been an uptick in incidents of arson, vandalism, and violence against Tesla showrooms that, while unrelated to the protests, have led to Musk and President Donald Trump labeling them “domestic terrorism.” Other members of the Trump administration have signaled the protesters could come under scrutiny as well. Attorney General Pam Bondi promised “severe consequences on those involved in these attacks, including those operating behind the scenes to coordinate and fund these crimes.”

The hour-long call, which included actors, filmmakers, members of Congress, federal workers, academics, and journalists, tried to steer clear of Trump’s talk of “terrorism,” keeping the focus on Musk and the effort to tank the company’s stock price. Tesla’s stock has lost nearly 40 percent of its value since the beginning of the year, as poor sales and rising competition in the US and overseas have fueled growing pessimism about the company’s future.

“There is no conspiracy, there is no well-funded cabal,” said actor and filmmaker Alex Winter, who helped promote the protests early on on BlueSky. “It’s just Elon Musk who has taken Tesla down.”

Alice Hu, executive director of Planet Over Profit, said that protesters were aiming for 500 events across the world on March 29th, with demonstrations at all 277 Tesla showrooms in the US, as well as hundreds more overseas. Protesters should even feel free to demonstrate at Supercharger stations, she said.

“We need to show Elon that he can throw a tantrum online because his stocks are tanking,” Hu said. “He can get Trump to put on a humiliating used car show in front of the White House. These wannabe authoritarians can try to intimidate us from exercising our First Amendment rights, but they can’t stop us from fighting back.”

Organizers were adamant that their movement was peaceful, often going out of their way to stress the nonviolent nature of the demonstrations.

“The things that we’re fighting for, we are fighting for our country,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Tex.) said. “We’re fighting for democracy. We’re fighting for our freedoms. And when I say fighting, I’m saying that figuratively. Obviously, everything that I am promoting is nonviolent.”

With Trump promising domestic terrorism charges for violence against Tesla, organizers advised that protesters consult attorneys to better understand the laws in their states. Some states have statutes that could be used to intimidate protesters, so its worthwhile to know what you’re up against, said Lauren Regan, executive director and senior staff attorney at the Civil Liberties Defense Center. She said in her experience, states are often hesitant to prosecute activists because there’s a strong likelihood those statutes will be found unconstitutional.

“Their goal is to just pluck a few individuals out and scare the rest of us into submission and apathy,” Regan said. “There are going to be some areas of the country that are very conservative and are gonna be hard on dissidents or activists, no matter what the timing.”

The sharp decrease in Tesla’s stock in recent weeks has clearly invigorated the protests. Several speakers spoke of Tesla’s collapse as not only possible, but likely. Micah Lee, an investigative journalist who was among a group of Twitter users to have their accounts banned by Musk shortly after his acquisition of the social platform, said that going after Tesla’s value was a “solid strategy.”

“If we kill the Tesla brand, if we drive down the stock price low enough, we can force him to sell his stock to pay back the billions of dollars of debt that he took on to buy Twitter,” Lee said. “This will drive Tesla’s stock into a death spiral.”

Musk’s status as the richest man in the world is largely thanks to Tesla’s stock price. He owns 13 percent of the company, making him the single largest shareholder. As of today, the company is worth $739 billion — down from 1.08 trillion earlier this year, meaning Musk’s stake is worth about $96 billion. And Tesla’s board of directors is composed of close friends and relatives, raising concerns about its independence from the controversial CEO. Several board members, including chair Robyn Denholm and James Murdoch, have sold over $100 million in Tesla stock in recent weeks.

But it’s not clear that hurting Tesla will actually matter much to Musk. He remains in Trump’s good graces, and is wielding vast amounts of control within the federal government. Even if these protests can seriously affect Tesla, Musk has consolidated so much political power that, after a certain point, it’s not clear whether market forces still apply as strongly.

Musk’s love of memes — he recently quipped “I am become meme” at CPAC — is a sign that the world’s richest man is living in a different reality than most people, which could be an advantage, said Joan Donovan, an assistant professor of journalism and emerging media studies at Boston University who studies media manipulation, disinformation, and online political movements.

“He thinks of himself as this black hat hacker that’s broken into the government and socially engineered his way into the Treasury and he’s gonna abscond with all the data, it’s an obvious data heist,” Donovan said. “But he believes he’s living in a meme, and so we need to be very clear about what our demands are, about what our bright lines are, and that we’re not gonna stop until Tesla is done with Musk.”

In simplest terms, the protesters said they were not backing down.

“Fuck around and find out,” said Keturah Johnson, a veteran and vice president of AFA-CWA. “Protect trans folks, respect veterans, fight it to save lives, and let’s take Tesla the fuck down. Solidarity forever.






The Digital Coup D’état of Musk, Zuckerberg & Trump

March 23, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.



Only a few weeks ago, the orange monster of the Unites States was speaking in the very place his Neo-Nazi thugs wanted to destroy not so long ago – the US Congress. In typical showbiz-fashion – the master-propagandist Trump announced that the days of rule by unelected bureaucrats are over!

Democrats pointed to Elon Musk – an unelected pretend-to-be Uber-administrator currently well on the way to annihilate the US government, including Medical Care.

Meanwhile, it is the unelected South African Elon Musk, who seems to be the mastermind of digital coup, that is ravaging the huge section of the administration of the American state.

He is not alone. Overall, there is the growing power of greedy tech-oligarchs under Donald Trump. Actually, tech-moguls like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have not even liked each other very much for a very long time. But now, things are different.

Now, both belong to the innermost circle of Trump’s oligarchy. With the help of their corporations, digital politics played a substantial role in recent US elections.

Unfortunately, the guiding motto of digital propaganda is digital hype first – think second – unless, of course, thinking can be eliminated at all. Thinking is to be succeeded by hyped-up emotions and, of course, algorithm-driven hate message.

Beyond that, the most important thing to realize is that the time of the big surveillance scandals is over. In fact, the time of surveillance as such is almost over as well. This is the Age of Mass Deception and online manipulation – soon to be driven by artificial intelligence.

It also means that the time when EU-Commission boss Ursula von der Leyen known as Censure-Ursula is also over. In short, the Catholic Church’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum is no longer needed in the digital world.

Everyone can post the greatest nonsense on the net. And corporate algorithms will make sure that their far right online scum rises to the top.

Of course, there is a lot of digitally expressed opinion in any election. It illustrates how many digital aspects have become a matter of course, in more or less, all policy areas that are in need of legal regulation.

Some legislatures like the European Union will once again deal with the monitoring of digital communications, administrative digitization (tedious), broadband expansion (too slow), data protection (needed), IT security, digital education, digital health information (important), digital weapons (horrifying), and the climate impact of AI (substantial).

Questions about artificial intelligence (AI) will certainly remain with us for a while – a long while. They will not disappear as quickly as previous tech-hypes such as Y2K, block-chain, Bitcoin, etc.

Rather surprisingly, the debate about data retention will be twenty years old in 2025. It is a topic that is – unfortunately – still not off the table and it might even be getting worse under the orange man’s digital oligarchs now, virtually, running the US government.

Maybe it would be a nice opportunity to hold an anniversary gala for digital oligarchs to celebrate the non-regulation of your online data. In that way, the oligarchs can use, abuse, misuse, buy and sell your private data – at will. The free market, once again, bites you and your private data in the bum.

It is most likely that the digital oligarchs would like to go back on that road instead and shovel even more of your data into their ever growing moneybag. Of course, their orange messiah wants it and even better, he can sell his free market idiocy rather convincingly to his adoring disciples.

So far, when it comes to data storage, the ultras of the free market always prevailed. Certainly, dealing with these topics would have been more meaningful than the topic of, for example, hyping up migration. But then again, racism wins election – data retention policy does not.

Yet, these questions about IT are questions that affect many people in everyday life – whether online or offline. Yet, for Donald Trump and his worshippers, health insurance, for example, will be a little cheaper if it comes without some sort of data protection.

After all, the US has the most expensive health care system that delivers the worst outcome. Even the free market flagship of corporate business – the Harvard Business Review – seems to know it.

Under the digital oligarchs, Americans will be deprived of decisions on whether they should decide if they would rather pay a little more, to be able to decide for themselves whether or not and for how long, and where and by whom their personal health data is stored on the Internet. As democracy takes a backseat under Trump, his digital oligarchy runs under the motto,

Your Digi-Führer knows best!

If, for example, sensitive health data on mental illnesses, abortions or medical restrictions – which are, after all, none of the bosses’ business – end up on the net visible to everyone, including your boss, because the digital oligarchs got their way on IT (in)security, the consequences will – again – be borne by those who saved a few cents.

It’s not just about corporate online platforms – euphemistically known as social media – but also about private data stored in corporately owned clouds.

And it is about your data stored on servers of (perhaps still) public institutions like kindergartens, schools, universities, state and community authorities, but also on servers run by health insurance companies, home insurance companies, the police, the privatized security industry, the courts, and on it goes, the list is endless.

But these digital issues are not even obvious on the side-lines of an election campaign. By now, it becomes clear that there is another digital policy issue, the impact and magnitude of which no-one can fully estimate, yet.

This issue is the digital coup d’etat currently on the way in the US. It came with the kind support of the major US tech companies and adjacent digital oligarchs.

Corporate IT bosses have decided that it is more profitable for them to side with Donald Trump. Capitalism is about profits, not civil society, the future of a nation, global warming nor human rights.

Recently, Trump’s tech-oligarchs were demonstratively sitting behind the new president at his inauguration. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has already announced that he would abolish fact checks on “Meta” (Facebook, Instagram).

This sounds rather un-dramatic at first. Yet, these checks by professional teams have been around since it was proven that the mass dissemination of false information – known as disinformation – via Facebook had led to massacres and mass rapes of the Rohingya in Myanmar starting in 2017.

The deliberately setup, profitable and algorithm-driven dynamics of un-moderated content as transmitted on large corporate platforms can lead to a lot of violence. People will die. What interests Elon Musk pursues with “X” is obvious.

Meanwhile, top-tech-oligarch Musk prefers to show the Hitler salute and called to vote for Germany’s Neo-Nazi party – the AfD. In a campaign video of Germany’s neo-fascist AfD, Trump’s deputy-Führer appeared at the AfD party congress. It all adds up.

A recent study has proven that the mini-Führer’s “X” (Twitter) showed content of Germany’s Neo-Nazi AfD more often than that of Germany’s democratic parties. This too adds up.

Since the change of government in the USA, Trump’s henchman Musk has been actively involved in German politics and US government activities.

Yet, it is unclear in which “official” (read: unelected) function Musk operates. Far right coup d’état leaders do not need officialdom – they need to have their very own thiefdom.

The far right restructuring of the formerly democratic US government is dramatic in so many respects that the digital aspects are not always the focus. However, in reality, they play a significant role.

Far right digi-overlord Musk wants to get access to a lot of data and is rebuilding the software used by the US authorities. This is explicitly his Trump-assigned mandate.

A Trump/Musk-style digital coup d’état also means that all employees of federal authorities are forced to describe their own achievements in an e-mail – in true Stalin-style.

Under mini-Führer Musk, these mails should be evaluated automatically and then be the basis for mass terminations of those who incur the disliking of the new and ideology-driven sub-Führer.

Today, many people might still think that all this is not (yet) relevant outside of the USA. Across the water, Europeans enjoy strong EU laws against hate speech, the incitement of violence, and the EU-wide takeover by a digi-Führer.

Even if US IT-corporations have been very committed to in weakening this, in Europe at least, they are still there – for now.

But if Donald Trump’ Vice-President doubts that freedom of expression is secured in Europe and links this to the role of the US in security policy, it is obvious that the handling of content on US-American media platforms in the EU is changing – not for the better.

This change is directed towards the ideological wishes of digital coup d’état’s Führer and their libertarian everything goes ideology in which hate speech flourishes. Ideologically, this is semi-legitimised as free speech.

Here is what much of this means. The coup d’état leaders of this US government want more racist, anti-Semitic, anti-disabled people, anti-women, and anti-LGBTIQ content.

They fancy the white race. It gets worse. If there is a Wikipedia page called the Racial views of Donald Trump, not much more needs to be said on the issue.

To push his racist agenda, the orange bully-boss wants less intervention by democratic institutions that may play a role in subduing his hate speech. It is dangerous not to realize that their digital coup d’état does stop at US borders.

And the Führers of the digital coup d’état are ready to enforce that. What they do is a clear-cut attack on democratic institutions, on the democracy discourses as well as on democracy itself.

In all honesty, democracy never had found really good conditions on corporate platforms driven by algorithms. Self-evidently, digital corporations are not democratic institutions either.

Virtually all of this is a significant threat to democratic societies – particularly those that are not part of the EU’s civil society umbrella. These may have to face the aggravation of conflicts.

Worse, it’s not just about online platforms. It is also about your personal data stored in corporate-owned cloud servers and your private files – often stored on US-owned corporate cloud servers.

It would be preferable if they were well encrypted, secured and protected from any unwarranted access. But unfortunately, this is not always the case. And the digi-oligarchs never wish for this to be the case.

Meanwhile, Apple has just finished encrypting iCloud in the UK. The idea is that Apple’s secretly-ordered backdoor will not be forced to include an access option for security agencies.

Instead of that, Apple did something much worse: it opened the front door.

This is just one example of how political changes can attack IT and data security. Much worse is on the horizon. A new digital politics is coming, and we should dress ourselves warmly for its impact on us.

One might also look around in search for alternatives. One might not like to rely on the “questionable” promises of Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon to handle your data confidentially – especially now.

In the tech world too, what is euphemistically labelled industry self-regulation remains a myth. It is a pro-business ideology, at best.

But it is not enough for us to look at individual solutions either. For most of us, to find alternatives in some obscure niches of the Internet will not be a viable alternative.

What is missing are serious demands for non-profit, democratically governed and publicly funded online platforms.

Beyond that, there is a need for the breaking up of digital monopolies that are run by those fostering the digital coup d’état that is currently on the way – in the USA, and perhaps, globally.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate


Thomas Klikauer has over 800 publications (including 12 books) and writes regularly for BraveNewEurope (Western Europe), the Barricades (Eastern Europe), Buzzflash (USA), Counterpunch (USA), Countercurrents (India), Tikkun (USA), and ZNet (USA). One of his books is on Managerialism (2013).
Could Elon Musk Actually Destroy Social Security as We Know It?

The DOGE boys are already moving in that direction.


March 24, 2025
Source: Inequality.org



Why is Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, hyperventilating about Social Security? Why is he inventing unhinged tales about “fraudulent” hordes of Social Security grifters? Why is his “DOGE” chopping away staffers at the already understaffed Social Security Administration?

Let’s start with the political reality that most Americans see Social Security as absolutely essential to their future financial security. These average Americans, Musk and his like-minded super wealthy fear, are eventually going to start demanding that America’s rich pay a far bigger share of the revenue Social Security so desperately needs.

What are these rich paying now into Social Security? Peanuts.

Social Security’s basic math: Employees currently pay 6.2 percent of the money they make into the Social Security system. Their employers match that 6.2 percent. Self-employed Americans, for their part, pay 12.4 percent.

But this funding set-up comes with two incredibly consequential catches that royally benefit our nation’s highest earners.

The first: Only paycheck income faces a Social Security tax levy. Most Americans get the vast bulk of their income from their paychecks. Rich people don’t. Our richest get most of their income from the investments they make with their wealth. This investment income — everything from the profits the rich make selling assets to the stock dividends they collect — faces no Social Security tax.

The second catch: Top corporate executives and other Americans with hefty paychecks only pay Social Security tax on a fraction of their pay. In 2025, all paycheck income over $176,100 will face not a penny of Social Security tax.

The savings our most affluent reap from both these two loopholes can run staggeringly high. Here in 2025, the economist Teresa Ghilarducci points out, at least 229 corporate and banking honchos making above $50 million per year will have essentially “paid all their Social Security taxes for the entire year” before the end of the year’s first morning!

How long can Social Security’s financing continue to go on like this? Not long. Up until recent years, we’ve had many more Americans contributing into Social Security than collecting from it. Today, with seniors making up an ever larger share of our nation’s population, the old ratios are breaking down.

In 2021, as the Social Security Board of Trustees reported last May, the Social Security system’s total annual costs started running higher than the program’s annual income. Come 2035, the trustees would go on to warn, America’s seniors will be collecting only 83 percent of the benefits due them unless Congress acts to set Social Security on a much more sustainable course

The simple solution to this demographic and fiscal challenge? We could move to once and for all end the special Social Security privileges that America’s most affluent continue to enjoy.

Elon Musk and his fellow deep pockets oppose, naturally, this simple solution. Their alternative? Squeeze the Social Security Administration. Cut the agency’s staff. Shut down Social Security offices and limit the services that aging and disabled Social Security recipients can easily access.

Create, in other words, a public Social Security system that no longer works. And, in the meantime, let billionaire-bankrolled politicians push schemes that position privatizing Social Security as the only way to “fix” what ails it.

This gameplan has already begun unfolding.

In late February, DOGE-inspired cutbacks eliminated 7,000 jobs from Social Security’s already depleted ranks. Other cuts are canceling the leases of some 800 Social Security field offices. Last week, the under-the-Musk-gun agency announced new policies that will force elderly and disabled people who’ve been able to verify their ID by phone to visit the distant field offices that remain open.

“The combination of fewer workers, fewer offices, and a massive increase in the demand for in-person services could sabotage the Social Security system,” reflects Max Richtman, the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“One has to ask,” adda Richtman, “why the world’s richest man — who has received in the tens of billions of dollars in federal contracts — is targeting the agency that helps so many Americans keep their heads above water financially.”

Right-wing lawmakers in Congress, meanwhile, are backing moves to increase the age seniors have to reach to access, without penalties, Social Security retirement benefits. Other right-wingers are laying the groundwork for privatizing Social Security outright.

Can right-wingers succeed with this brazen assault on the financial security of America’s working people? Maybe. President Trump is giving Musk and his gang all the political cover they need, claiming, on the one hand, that nothing about Social Security is going to change while — at the same time — letting Team Musk continue its attack on both Social Security’s image and infrastructure.

But Social Security does still remain — at least for now — the “third rail” of American politics. You mess with Social Security, as the conventional political wisdom goes, you’re going to feel a shock. The task today for Social Security’s defenders: to make that shock for Trump and Musk as sharp as possible.

Equally as crucial: ending the “free pass” on Social Security funding that America’s most affluent have long been enjoying. The dollars that this free pass is costing Social Security have been soaring just as spectacularly as America’s income and wealth has been concentrating.

In 2023, the most recent year with full stats available, some 6 percent of U.S. income earners took home incomes higher than that year’s Social Security tax cap. That 6 percent, economist Teresa Ghilarducci noted earlier this year, would have contributed over $388 billion more into Social Security’s coffers if that tax cap had not been in place.

Those rich who pocketed over $50 million in 2023 paychecks, Ghilarducci also notes, would have paid $3.6 billion in Social Security tax without that tax cap in existence, a payout into Social Security that would have been greater than the total Social Security tax that Americans making under $57,000 — 77 percent of working Americans overall — actually paid that year.

How can we bring some semblance of fairness into how we fund Social Security? We have choices.

Public policy experts at the Brookings Institution last month advanced an approach to overhauling Social Security “intended to appeal to Republicans and Democrats alike.” Their proposal would stabilize Social Security’s finances by increasing the cap on earnings subject to Social Security tax. The new cap would subject 90 percent of all paycheck earnings to that tax and shut down the loophole that lets some business owners now totally escape the Social Security payroll levy.

The Brookings reform would also increase the retirement age for high earners and “strengthen child benefits and protections for Americans with disabilities and the survivors of workers who die.”

Other reformers like Rep. John Larson, a long-time congressional champion of Social Security from Connecticut, are emphasizing the importance of expanding both Social Security’s benefits and tax base. The pending “Social Security Expansion Act” — introduced in the Senate by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — speaks to both those goals.

If enacted, notes the bill’s co-sponsor Rep. Val Hoyle from Oregon, this legislation “would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure Social Security is fully funded for the next 75 years by applying the Social Security payroll tax on all income above $250,000.”

What’s going to happen next in the congressional Social Security debate? Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill appear likely to become ever more nervous. Elon Musk’s maniacal — and ongoing — attacks on Social Security already have these Republicans exceptionally ill at ease.

“Going after the United States Institute of Peace is one thing, going after Social Security is something entirely different,” notes Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker. “The ironies of a person of such immense wealth targeting a program that provides a modest benefit to ordinary people has the worst possible aura about it.”

But Musk’s hundreds of billions have the power to buff up any aura. Stopping his assault on Social Security is going to take a national groundswell every bit as sweeping as the 1930s grassroots ferment that created Social Security in the first place.



Sam Pizzigati an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, has written widely on income and wealth concentration, with op-eds and articles in publications ranging from the New York Times to Le Monde Diplomatique. He co-edits Inequality.org Among his books: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class, 1900-1970 (Seven Stories Press). His latest book: The Case for a Maximum Wage (Polity). A veteran labor movement journalist, Pizzigati spent 20 years directing publishing at America’s largest union, the 3.2 million-member National Education Association.
Source: FAIR

As the hack-and-slash crusade of the “Department of Government Efficiency” picked up steam in early February, the Washington Post editorial board (2/7/25) gave President Donald Trump a tip on how to most effectively harness Elon Musk’s experience in “relentlessly innovating and constantly cutting costs”: Don’t just cut “low-hanging fruit,” but “reform entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare before they become insolvent.”

Repeating the “flat Earth–type lie” of looming Social Security insolvency (Beat the Press5/8/24) has been a longtime hobby horse of corporate media, as has been reported at FAIR (e.g., 1/886/25/196/15/23) and elsewhere (Column8/4/23). While many leading newspapers have rightly called out Musk’s interventions into Social Security and the rest of the administrative state, they still push the pernicious myth that the widely popular social program is struggling and nearing insolvency, with few viable options for its rescue.

‘If nothing changes’

The Washington Post (5/6/24) last year depicted Social Security as literally throwing money down a hole.

An AP report (2/27/25) on Musk’s staffing cuts at the Social Security Administration, published in and then later taken down from the Washington Post (2/27/25), mentioned that “the program faces a looming bankruptcy date if it is not addressed by Congress.” It claimed that Social Security “will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2035.” The New York Times (3/5/25) concurred that the program is “in such dire financial trouble that benefit cuts could come within a decade if nothing changes.”

Such sky-is-falling reporting didn’t start with DOGE’s entry on the scene (e.g., New York Times1/26/8612/2/06Washington Post11/8/805/12/09). Indeed, the Post was beating this drum loudly after the 2024 Report of the Social Security Trustees was released last May. “Financial reality, though, is that if the programs aren’t reformed, and run out of money to pay required benefits, cuts could become unavoidable,” the Post editorial board (5/6/24) lamented.

These arguments misrepresent the structure of Social Security. In general, Social Security operates as a “pay-as-you-go” system, where taxes on today’s workers fund benefits for today’s retirees. While this system is more resilient to financial downturn, it “can run into problems when demographic fluctuations raise the ratio of beneficiaries to covered workers” (Economic Policy Institute, 8/6/10). During the 1980s, to head off the glut of Baby Boomer retirements, the Social Security program raised revenues and cut benefits to build up a trust fund for surplus revenues.

It’s worth noting that by setting up this fund, President Ronald Reagan helped to finance massive reductions in tax rates for the wealthy. By building up huge surpluses that the SSA was then required by law to pour into Treasury bonds, Reagan could defer the need to raise revenues into the future, when the SSA would begin tapping into the trust fund.

As US demographics have shifted, with Boomers comfortably into their retirement years, the program no longer runs a surplus. Instead, the SSA makes up the difference between tax receipts and Social Security payments by dipping into the trust fund, as was designed. What would hypothetically go bankrupt in 2035 is not the Social Security program itself, but the trust fund. If this were to happen, the SSA would still operate the program, paying out entitlements at a prorated level of 83%, all from tax receipts.

In other words, a non-original part of the Social Security program may sunset in 2035. While this could present funding challenges, it is not the same as the entire program collapsing, or becoming insolvent.

Furthermore, the idea that a crisis is looming rests on nothing changing in Social Security’s funding structure. Luckily, Congress has ten years to come up with a solution to the Social Security shortfall. We aren’t fretting today about how to fund the Forest Service’s army of seasonal trail workers for the summer of 2035. There’s no need to lose sleep over Social Security funding, either. As economist Dean Baker (Beat the Press5/8/24) put it:

There is no economic reason that we can’t pay benefits into the indefinite future, as long as we don’t face some sort of economic collapse from something like nuclear war or a climate disaster.

The easy and popular option is not an option

A Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll (4/24/24) of swing state voters found 77% in favor of raising taxes on billionaires to aid Social Security.

There are three main solutions that can be found in stories about Social Security’s woes. In the wake of last year’s Trustees’ Report, the Washington Post (5/6/24) listed “the politically treacherous choices of raising the payroll tax, cutting benefits…or taking on more public debt to prop up the system.” The first two options increase the burden on workers, either by raising their taxes, or cutting benefits that they are entitled to, and have already begun paying into. The third option, taking on more public debt, is no doubt a nonstarter for the deficit hawks at the Post.

But this explainer-style news piece, titled “The US Has Updated Its Social Security Estimates. Here’s What You Need to Know,” neglected to mention the easiest and most popular option: raising the cap on income from which Social Security taxes are withheld.

In 2025, income up to $176,100 is taxed for Social Security purposes. Anything beyond that is not. In other words, the architect making close to 200 grand a year pays the same amount into Social Security as the chief executive who takes home seven figures. One simple, and popular, way to increase funding for Social Security is to raise that regressive cap.

To be fair to the Post, the cap increase has been mentioned elsewhere in its pages, including in an opinion piece (5/6/24) by the editorial board published that same day. However, despite acknowledging that “many Americans support the idea” of raising the limit, the editorial board lumps this idea in with “raising the retirement age for younger generations and slowing benefit growth for the top half of earners,” before concluding that “these [solutions] won’t be popular or painless.”

Raising the cap on income is, in fact, popular (as the Post editorial board itself acknowledged), and the only pain it would cause is for the top 6% of income-earners who take home more than $176,100. The New York Times (3/5/25) also mentions a cap increase as an idea to “stabilize” the program, only to say that “no one on Capitol Hill is talking seriously about raising that cap any time soon.” Why that is the case is left unsaid.

Even more popular than raising the cap on wages was President Joe Biden’s proposed billionaires tax, which “would place a 25% levy on households worth more than $100 million. The plan taxes accumulated wealth, so it ends up hitting money that often goes untaxed under current laws” (Bloomberg4/24/24). Perhaps unsurprisingly, this kind of solution was not explored in the Times, nor in the billionaire-owned Post.

Useful misinformation

Reports of Social Security’s impending demise are greatly exaggerated. As economist Paul Van De Water wrote for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (7/24/24):

Those who claim that Social Security won’t be around at all when today’s young adults retire and that young workers will receive no benefits either misunderstand or misrepresent the trustees’ projections.

Social Security’s imminent demise may not be true, but it’s very useful to those who want to rob all the workers who have dutifully paid their Social Security taxes, by misleading them into thinking it’s simply not possible to pay them back what they’re owed when they retire.

Compared to the retirement programs of global peers, the United States forces its workers to retire later, gives retirees fewer benefits and taxes its citizens more regressively (Washington Post7/19/24). Despite this, Americans still love Social Security, and want the government to spend money on it. Far from cuts called for by anxious columnists, the only overhaul Social Security needs is better benefits and a fairer tax system.