Earlier this week, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) posted an extensive – and patently ridiculous – diatribe against Social Security on X (formerly Twitter). The thread is full of falsehoods and misleading assertions about America’s most popular social insurance program, including its origins. Senator Lee incorporates many tired myths that the political right propagates to undermine a successful government program they can’t stand – simply because it is a successful government program.
In her book, “The Truth About Social Security,” social insurance expert and advocate Nancy Altman writes that “today’s discussions of Social Security are replete with revisionist history. Some of today’s revisionist statements are ‘zombie lies’… that refuse to die.”
The motive of these revisionist attacks is clear: to undermine public faith in Social Security so conservatives can cut or privatize it. According to Newsweek, a video has resurfaced from 2010 involving Senator Lee in which he said his intentions were to “phase out” Social Security altogether.
Never mind that Social Security is largely beloved by the American public or that it keeps seniors, people with disabilities, and their families from falling into poverty. Of course, Senator Lee focuses exclusively on the retirement portion while neglecting to mention that the program covers Americans of all ages in the event of the disability or death of a family breadwinner.
Making matters worse, Senator Lee’s post was amplified by the billionaire owner of X and Trump crony, Elon Musk. With Musk’s assist, Lee’s propaganda received some 40 million views on X. The right-wing misinformation machine that helped elect Donald Trump is now targeting Americans’ cherished earned benefits.
Here are 7 claims in Senator Lee’s X post that don’t pass the sniff test, followed by – gasp! – the actual FACTS:
#1
Lee: In 1935, the American people were sold a bill of goods. They were told, “Pay into this system, and it’ll be YOUR money for retirement.” Sounds great, right?
FACT: The American people were not “sold a bill of goods” in any way. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed the program into law in 1935, made clear that Social Security was a social insurance program to help “protect against the hazards and vicissitudes of life.” (In 1934, FDR said that the aim of Social Security was “furthering the security of the citizen and his family through social insurance.”)
Workers pay into the program in exchange for benefits upon retirement, disability, or the death of a family breadwinner — similar to the way customers pay private insurance premiums and receive payouts when something they are insured against occurs (a house fire, a car accident, etc.). The Roosevelt administration never characterized Social Security as a personal savings account, though that is a common misunderstanding perpetuated by Social Security opponents like Senator Lee.
In distorting the nature and intent of Social Security, revisionists like Lee “seek to expunge the far-sighted and noble vision of Social Security’s founders, President Roosevelt and those around him,” writes Altman.
#2
Lee: First of all, this money doesn’t sit in a nice, individual account with your name on it. No, it goes into a huge account called the “Social Security Trust Fund.”
FACT: Again, Social Security was not designed or promoted as an individual savings account. This can be a bit confusing because Americans do receive Social Security numbers to track their income and calculate benefits. Senator Lee and others exploit this confusion to undermine Social Security itself.
Benefits are calculated according to lifetime wages and are designed to be “progressive.” In other words, lower-income retirees receive a larger proportion of their former work income in benefits than higher-earners do. Benefits are also adjusted for inflation, so that, most years, retirees receive a boost in their monthly Social Security payments.
It is no secret that surplus payroll contributions from workers go into a Social Security trust fund, which is invested in government bonds and repaid with interest — which helps to pay future benefits. That is simply how the system works.
#3
Lee: Here’s the kicker—the government routinely raids this fund. Yes, you heard that right. They take “your money” and use it for whatever the current Congress deems “necessary.”
FACT: This is another bogus claim that Social Security’s opponents perpetuate. The Social Security trust fund (currently valued at $2.8 trillion) is invested in treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Those bonds are repaid with interest, like any others. As our president and CEO regularly points out, if you had $2.8 trillion, you probably would not hide it under your mattress; you would invest it in safe securities.
Like the revenue from other government-issued bonds, Congress may spend that money how it sees fit (the military, roads, bridges, etc.). This is no different than bonds held by Wall Street mutual funds or foreign governments. However, Congress is not allowed to “raid” the Social Security trust fund itself — and has not done so. The assets in the trust fund belong solely to Social Security and can only be used to pay benefits and the cost of administering the program. Politicians are not stealing from it.
#4
Lee: If you had put the same amount into literally ANYTHING else—a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account—you’d be better off by the time you reached retirement age, even if the government kept some of it!
FACT: While it’s true that investments in commodities and other markets can sometimes pay off, they are not reliable. The markets can be lucrative, but they also are volatile. And if the timing isn’t right, you could lose all or most of your retirement funds. Just ask the millions of people who were all set to retire in 2008 and saw their 401K’s and other investments evaporate.
Once again, Social Security is not an investment fund. It is a collective social insurance program that pays out promised benefits. In its nearly 90 years of existence, Social Security has never missed a payment to beneficiaries, through recessions, wars, and natural disasters. Even COVID was not able to disrupt the payment of promised Social Security benefits.
#5
Lee: Let’s talk about how this system is set up to fail. The demographic shift? More retirees, fewer workers. It’s almost fair to compare it to a Ponzi scheme that’s running out of new investors.
FACT: Lee does not explain how a system “set up to fail” has worked so well for almost a century. As for the “demographic shift” of “more retirees and fewer workers,” the historic Social Security reforms of 1983 already anticipated the swell in retirees that would occur when the Baby Boomers reached their senior years, and the coinciding trend toward lower birthrates. That is why the 1983 reforms were put in place — to keep Social Security financially strong well into the 21st century.
What the 1983 reformers did not anticipate (but perhaps should have) was the growing inequality in income that has plagued the country in the past 40 years, depriving Social Security of anticipated revenue. Four decades ago, 90% of the nation’s total wages were subject to Social Security payroll taxes. Today, that figure has sunk closer to 80% as the rich have gotten richer and most other Americans’ wages have stagnated. The solution is to adjust the payroll wage cap (now set at $176,100 for 2025) so that higher earners once again contribute their fair share — providing Social Security with billions of dollars in much-needed revenue.
Senator Lee falsely compares Social Security to a “Ponzi scheme.” (So have Donald Trump and other influential Republicans.). A Ponzi scheme is a criminal enterprise where investors are swindled out of promised returns. Social Security is an inter-generational compact which has worked remarkably well for nearly 90 years and never missed a payment.
#6
Lee: Remember, this isn’t just about retirement. It’s about independence, about controlling your own destiny. With Social Security, you control nothing.
FACT: This is probably the most absurd argument in Senator Lee’s post. Conservatives typically portray any government program that they don’t like (usually social programs, no matter how beneficial or successful) as compromising Americans’ freedom. Ronald Reagan famously warned against the passage of Medicare, saying, “You and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.’
Of course, the opposite is true. Programs like Social Security and Medicare help to liberate seniors (and people with disabilities and their families) from fear of losing health coverage or falling into poverty. People who have baseline financial and health security are freer and more independent to live the way they wish, not less free.
To say that “you control nothing” with Social Security is patently ridiculous. Social Security provides you and your family with guaranteed retirement, disability, spousal, and survivor benefits. Participating in Social Security does not prevent you from investing in 401Ks, IRAs, real estate, or any other markets, or simply putting money in a savings account. More than half of the American workforce currently participates in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. These people are not prevented from doing that by Social Security. In fact, Social Security was once envisioned as part of a “three-legged stool” of retirement savings, pensions, and Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, Americans are having trouble saving for retirement because of growing income inequality and rising living costs, and few employers provide pensions anymore. That is an argument for expanding – not privatizing or cutting – Social Security.
#7
Lee: Social Security is government dependency at its worst.
FACT: Only in the fantasy world of the political right is Social Security “government dependency.” Social Security is not and has never been a welfare program. Americans contribute to it during the course of their working lives in return for promised benefits. It was designed that way on purpose; so that it would not be a government handout. Americans feel ownership of Social Security. That’s why when Senator Lee and others on the right float ideas to cut or privatize Social Security, seniors respond, “Hands off of Social Security. That’s our money. We paid for it!”
**********************************