Elon Musk and the Social Security Scam That Isn’t

The billionaire’s latest power play isn’t about stopping fraud. It’s about reshaping Social Security in ways that benefit the wealthy and weaken one of America’s most successful programs.

Feb 11, 2025

The Long War on Social Security

Elon Musk has a new obsession, and if you rely on Social Security, you’re part of it. Handpicked by Donald Trump to lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has declared open season on federal benefits, claiming that fraud is rampant in Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs. His “solution” isn’t a well-reasoned policy overhaul—it’s a sweeping crackdown that hands an unelected billionaire access to Americans’ financial data, all under the guise of stopping waste.

This isn’t just another tech-world distraction or one of Musk’s Twitter tirades. It’s the latest escalation in a decades-long conservative effort to undermine Social Security. Since its inception in 1935, the program has been a target of conservative attacks. Ronald Reagan spent the 1980s warning that Social Security would soon collapse, setting the stage for relentless calls to privatize it. George W. Bush made a serious push to let Wall Street manage retirees’ money, only to be shut down by overwhelming public opposition. Paul Ryan and the House Republicans of the 2010s tried a different approach—using the language of “fiscal responsibility” to justify cuts. Now, Musk is bringing Silicon Valley’s libertarian ethos into the mix, suggesting that a few efficiency hacks and data audits will expose the so-called fraud that’s draining the system.

It’s an old strategy with a new, more dangerous face. By casting doubt on the legitimacy of Social Security payments, Musk isn’t just fearmongering about fraud—he’s laying the groundwork for benefit cuts, a weakened system, and, ultimately, privatization. If this effort succeeds, it won’t just be politicians shaping the future of Social Security—it will be billionaires with no accountability to the public.

Fraud as a Political Weapon

Musk’s claims about fraud in federal entitlement programs follow a familiar conservative playbook—using exaggerated claims to justify austerity measures. His latest approach is a textbook example of the 'firehose of falsehoods' technique—flooding the conversation with misleading statements to manufacture a crisis.

It is worth noting that Musk was never elected, confirmed by Congress, or accountable to the public in any official way. Yet, through his appointment to DOGE, he is now positioned to influence one of the most critical social safety nets in the country—without any oversight or public mandate. In a post on X, he detailed supposed steps to improve financial accountability, such as requiring categorization codes on payments and updating the "Do-Not-Pay" list. However, his most explosive claim—that over $100 billion per year is paid to individuals without Social Security Numbers, with an alleged consensus at Treasury that at least half of this represents fraud—remains entirely unverified.

The truth? Fraud in Social Security is exceedingly rare. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), all improper payments, including payments to the deceased and the very old, are estimated at about $3 billion per year; less than 1% of total benefits. That’s a far cry from the “MASSIVE FRAUD!!” Musk decries. But his exaggeration serves a clear purpose: sowing distrust in the system to justify benefit reductions and privatization efforts.

Even more troubling is that Musk’s influence bypasses legislative scrutiny. Unlike past attempts to cut Social Security, this effort relies on an unelected billionaire’s unchecked authority. That should alarm everyone.

Thanks for reading Bitter Sunshine! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

The Counterpoint Trap

Predictably, Musk’s defenders will argue that he’s simply trying to improve government efficiency. They will say that requiring categorization codes and updating payment records are commonsense reforms and that questioning them means ignoring fraud entirely. But this is a rhetorical trap designed to shut down criticism.

By framing any opposition as a defense of fraud, Musk and his allies avoid answering key questions. If fraud is such a massive issue, why is the proposed solution always about restricting benefits rather than auditing the wealthiest taxpayers who exploit loopholes? Why is it never about increasing funding for the SSA to improve oversight? And why should an unelected billionaire with no public accountability have any role in these decisions?

Musk’s approach is not about efficiency—it’s about control. His exaggerations are designed to push a predetermined agenda: weakening public trust in Social Security so that privatization seems like the only logical solution. This is the same playbook conservatives have used for decades, and it will work unless people recognize the trap and refuse to engage on Musk’s misleading terms.

The Language of the Debate: How Words Shape Policy

Musk and his allies are relying on loaded language to manipulate public perception. Here’s how it works:

Calling Social Security an "Entitlement" → Suggests that recipients are getting a handout rather than accessing benefits they paid into through payroll taxes.
Framing the program as "Going Bankrupt" → Implies an imminent collapse, when in reality, even if no changes are made, Social Security will still be able to pay out around 80% of benefits after 2035. This fits into the broader pattern of using 'catastrophizing language' to push austerity measures that wouldn’t otherwise gain public support.
Using "Reform" as a Euphemism for Cuts → When politicians propose "reforming" Social Security, they almost always mean reducing benefits, raising the retirement age, or privatizing the system.
Exaggerating "Fraud" to Justify Crackdowns → By inflating the extent of fraud, conservatives create a moral panic that makes restrictive policies seem necessary.

This linguistic sleight-of-hand is designed to shift public opinion and pave the way for policy changes that disproportionately hurt lower-income and working-class Americans.

Who Really Benefits from Social Security "Reform"?

If Musk and Trump were serious about ensuring Social Security's longevity, they wouldn’t be focused on vague accusations of fraud. Instead, they would be addressing the real fiscal challenge: the fact that payroll taxes are capped at $168,600 in income, meaning a billionaire like Musk pays the same amount into Social Security as someone making that amount in a year.

There are straightforward ways to shore up Social Security without cutting benefits:

Eliminate the payroll tax cap so that high earners contribute the same percentage of their income as working Americans.
Modestly increase payroll tax rates to adjust for rising life expectancy.
Close tax loopholes that allow the ultra-rich to avoid contributing their fair share.
Implement targeted fraud detection measures that are data-driven rather than sweeping, indiscriminate benefit cuts.

None of these options require Musk’s invasive data audits, mass benefit suspensions, or algorithm-driven crackdowns. Yet, these solutions are absent from the conversation because they don’t serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful.

The Last Laugh

Musk loves to preach efficiency, yet his own empire runs on government handouts. From Tesla to SpaceX, he’s raked in billions in federal support—now he’s suddenly worried about waste? That’s almost too rich, even for him.

The real fraud isn’t happening inside Social Security. It’s happening in the rhetoric used to attack it. And if we don’t push back, the only people who will benefit from this so-called "efficiency" will be the ultra-wealthy, while millions of Americans will be left with less financial security in their retirement years.