The Democratic Cave-in…and a Social Security Disinformation Campaign

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) leaves a Democratic caucus luncheon in the US Capitol on Thursday. Aaron Schwartz/Sipa via AP

I was planning to get a bit wonky and write about Social Security for this issue. Then came the Senate Democrats’ decision to throw in the towel and vote for the awful Republican-backed temporary spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. In technical terms, they blinked and gave away the store.

The Republican measure—known as a continuing resolution, or CR—boosts defense spending, implements cuts in other programs, and affords Trump increased authority over many other budgeting decisions. It was a bad bill, already passed by the House Republicans, over Democratic opposition, and Senate Dems could have prevented it from coming to a floor vote in the upper chamber—which might have trigged a government shutdown this weekend. But it seemed that too many of them feared either being blamed by the public for the shutdown or enabling a shutdown that Trump might then exploit to further disassemble important components of the federal government. Or both.

The second fear was possibly justified. The first was a product of political cowardice. The midterm elections are not for 18 months. Between now and then, a lot more will happen to influence voter attitudes. Culpability for a shutdown at this point will not determine those results. Besides, had the Senate Ds stood firm and a shutdown ensued, they could have argued that Trump and his cult Republicans caused this showdown by refusing to yield on an extremist measure. What appears to be the case is that too many Senate Democrats are afraid of fighting. They do not realize that a political and constitutional crisis is at hand. Conventional political calculations are no longer operational. When the ship is sinking, you don’t worry about the seating charts in the dining room.

Even an institutionalist like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) knows this. On Friday, she issued a statement chastising her Senate comrades and declaring, “We must fight back.” And scores of House Democrats signed on to a letter addressed to Schumer that declared their "strong opposition” to the Republican bill, noting, “Instead of capitulating to their obstruction, we must fight.”

As I’ve grown sick of saying—and maybe you have of reading—this is a battle of narratives. Donald Trump and Elon Musk assert they are crusading for hard-working Americans by assaulting the bloated, wasteful, and fraudulent federal government. That’s propaganda. They are chaotically eviscerating government and demolishing crucial programs to impose a blend of autocracy, oligarchy, and kleptocracy that benefits robber barons, Big Tech, and themselves. The Democrats need to tell voters that story over and over and demonstrate to the public that they are the ones truly fighting for American families and workers.

After its loss in November, there’s been much chattering about whether the party needs to lurch to the right to appeal to Trump-ish voters or be more fervently progressive to excite the base. I have a simplistic view: It’s not left or right; it’s fight or don’t fight. Democrats need to show verve and vigor to convince voters that there’s a titanic clash underway—as Trump assails the rule of law, democratic governance, decency, longstanding alliances, and economic sense—and that they are the true champions in the ring.

This spending face-off was an opportunity to do so—especially after House Democrats voted against the bill. There was no way to know how a government shutdown might have played out and affected the political landscape. (It’s possible the Republicans at some point might have yielded and agreed to what’s called a “clean CR”) But it was clear this was a chance for Democrats across the board to show they can take a stand and be badass—or something like that. Instead, they cowered, with Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, saying that the Ds might be better positioned to put up their dukes in September, when this CR runs out and when Trump may be less popular.

Telling people that you’re going to the fight later is not how you convince them that (a) now is a moment of urgency and (b) you’re a fighter for them. Schumer—who declared on Wednesday that the Democrats would not support this bill—cannot snap his fingers and force his caucus to display some guts. But he ended up turning tail, saying he feared that during a government closing Trump would declare programs for low-income Americans, such as food stamps, as non-essential and shutter them. The Republicans needed only seven Democratic votes to win the day, and, nine Ds, including Schumer, and one independent (Sen. Angus King of Maine) joined them. This collective inability of the Senate Dems to stand up and oppose this Trump-enabling legislation sends the worst of signals: We are helpless. It’s rather easy for voters to view a helpless political party as a worthless political party. In this political environment, defined by the Trump-Musk blitzkrieg, if you’re not punching back, you are the punching bag. And who wants to vote for a sack fill of sand?

Enough venting, back to our regularly scheduled programming….

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com

Donald Trump keeps saying he has no intention of slashing Social Security, but…he and his mini-me, Elon Musk, won’t stop making outlandish claims about the program and appear to be setting the table for cuts that they will try to call something other than “cuts.”

Just about every time they mention the program and entitlement spending, they lie. Musk recently denigrated Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” It isn’t, but if it were, shouldn’t you whack away at it? And during an interview with Fox Business, he claimed there’s $500 to $700 billion in annual waste and fraud within entitlement spending—when there is no evidence of that (as Forbes notes). Moreover, he and Trump have falsely insisted there are a gazillion dead people on the rolls, implying checks are going out to ghosts.

This duo of deceit is doing all they can to raise doubts about the most popular and arguably the most important government program. Meanwhile, Musk and his dodgy DOGErs have moved to shitcan or force out thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration, perhaps as many as 10,000. (Good luck reaching someone there on the phone.) The downsizing that has already occurred at the agency has led to “a significant loss of expertise,” according to one former employee. If things go to hell at the SSA, older voters might get truly get pissed.

Unlike ideologues of the right who have long salivated at the thought of shrinking entitlements and privatizing Social Security, Trump realizes such a move could be political suicide. So he has repeatedly vowed not to reduce the program. But should his promise be believed? (That’s a rhetorical question.) After Musk uttered an inartful statement this week about eliminating purported waste and fraud within entitlement programs—which some people interpreted as an expression of his desire to kill these programs—the White House rushed out a press release declaring, “The Trump Administration will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. President Trump himself has said it (over and over and over again)." But here’s the tell that the White House cannot be trusted on this front: The statement was full of lies about entitlement spending.

The press release claimed Musk was correct to opine that waste and fraud in entitlement programs totaled up to $700 billion each year. To back this up, the White House listed four “facts” and provided citations. Nerd that I am, I clicked on the links and discovered—wait for it—these citations did not support what the Trump White House was asserting. Let’s run through them:

FACT: The US Government Accountability Office estimates taxpayers lose as much as $521 billion annually to fraud—and most of that is within entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

That is not what the GAO said. Its report stated, “The federal government could lose between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud.” That is, could. Not that it does. And this estimate of possible fraud included Covid pandemic-fraud, which likely boosted the number. As for the claim that most of this comes from entitlement program, the citation supplied by the White House links to a GAO report that says there was an estimated $236 billion in “improper payments” in 2023. But it adds, “Such payments are essentially payment errors that can be the result of many things—including overpayments, inaccurate recordkeeping, or even fraud.” Medicare and Medicaid did have the most payment errors—$186 billion—but, again, that’s not necessarily due to fraud. 

FACT: Over the past two decades, the federal government has made an estimated $2.7 trillion in “improper payments”—the majority of which come in the form of “payments to deceased individuals or those who no longer [are] eligible for government programs.”

This is highly misleading. The GAO report cited says that most of the improper payments were overpayments. As an example of an overpayment, it pointed to “payments to deceased individuals or those no longer eligible for government programs.” It did not say that payments to dead people or ineligible recipients comprise the majority of these improper payments—only that they account for some of these errant payments. 

FACT: The Social Security Administration made an estimated $72 billion in improper payments between 2015 and 2022. 

This “fact” left out important context. The inspector general of the SSA, who came up with this statistic, noted that the $72 billion was “less than 1 percent of the total benefits paid during that period.” While $72 billion seems like a lot of money, a 1 percent error rate is rather admirable for an immense and complex program. Plus, the IG said that some of these payments were deemed improper because of errors made by beneficiaries in reporting changes in their circumstances. These might not be instances of fraud.

FACT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated it made $140+ billion in improper payments in 2024 alone.

This was quite the whopper. Click on that link and you get a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services fact sheet on improper payments. Add up the figures, and the total is $86 billion, not $140-plus billion. More important, the CMS states, “It is important to keep in mind that not all improper payments represent fraud or abuse. Improper payments are payments that do not meet CMS program requirements. They can be overpayments, underpayments, or payments where insufficient information was provided to determine whether a payment was proper. Most improper payments involve a state, contractor, or provider missing an administrative step.” It added, “Of the 2024 Medicaid improper payments, 79.11% were the result of insufficient documentation.” In other words, these payments might have nothing to do with waste and fraud.

You can see what’s going on here. The White House is mugging the truth to foster the impression that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are ridden with fraud. No doubt, within enormous programs that disburse a combined total of about $2.8 trillion a year, there will be waste, abuse, and fraud. That needs to be addressed, and the feds routinely spend a lot of resources each year trying to do so (without having to be besieged by the minions of DOGE). In its fact sheet, CMS reported that the improper payment rate had dropped for several of its major programs.

By and large, the stats ain’t so bad. Yet Trump and Musk are running a disinformation campaign that targets Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, inaccurately depicting them as rotting with criminality. Why do that? What are they setting up? It’s not too hard to imagine.

Who would ever have thought that South Park predicted a key component of Trump’s foreign policy.

Last week’s winner, Elon Musk, tried hard this week to get a streak going. In response to a declaration of support for Ukraine from Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), he tweeted one word: “Traitor.”

Kelly is a former Navy captain and astronaut. His wife, Gabby Giffords, was shot and nearly killed in the line of duty as a House member. Calling this man a “traitor” is rather foul. Then again, we remember what Trump said about John McCain, another Navy pilot who became an Arizonan senator.

The senator had a good retort:

When I was flying in combat over Iraq during the first Gulf War, getting shot at on almost every time I went up on missions, I didn’t expect that there was a 10-year-old kid sitting in South Africa who one day was going become the richest guy in the world and was going to call me a traitor for doing my job. I mean, who saw this coming? It was quite the surprise. I don’t take him very serious. Now, he kind of acts like a 12-year-old kid hurling around insults.

Like Musk, Trump could be a contender every week. The judges this week took note of the antisemitic-ish insult he hurled at Schumer: “Schumer is a Palestinian as far as I'm concerned. He's become a Palestinian. He used to be Jewish. He's not Jewish anymore. He's a Palestinian." Trump has said this before, but we should never lose sight of how low-class he is.

There was also this doozy from Trump. When asked about Vladimir Putin’s latest missile attack on Ukraine civilian targets, he said, “I actually think he’s doing what anybody else would do.” As if to excuse another Putin war crime.

Even at this point, even given Trump’s long-running affinity for the murderous and tyrannical Russian leader, the judges were shocked by Trump’s callous indifference to this wanton act of violence. Yes, they’re refreshingly naïve.

Did you know that Adam Curry, a popular VJ on MTV in the 1980s, is now a Christian nationalist podcaster? Neither did I. He’s also a fan of Musk and DOGE. On a recent broadcast, he noted he often listens to liberal podcasts to collect material for his own show. He maintained that lefties, after first accusing Musk of running DOGE for personal grift, now don’t know what to say, given that Musk is losing money due to his efforts (see Tesla stock). And he observed: “These people are not in a political position. They are under dark spiritual spells. And I think we need to pray for them."

I suppose Musk critics should thank Curry for his prayers. The judges were about to declare him the victor, when yet another Christian nationalist entered the contest. Pastor Joel Webbon declared,

Jews cannot hold public office. They can live here. They can live here peacefully…This is a Christian nation. And those who reject Christ and hate Christ—they can be in the car, and we shouldn’t mistreat them. But they don’t get to drive. Listen to me, Christian, you are allowed to have a country. You are…This nation is for us and our posterity. It's not for Hindus. It’s not for Muslims. And it's not for Jews. It belongs to Christians."

Am I being a sensitive, or did he emphasize the Jew bit the most? By the way, Webbon last year called for shooting and killing migrants who illegally cross the border, and he has declared that women should not have the right to vote. He’s an enthusiastic supporter of Trump, who has, of course, never rejected Webbon’s endorsement. And he’s our winner this week. 

Watch Ken Casey, the frontman of Dropkick Murphys, a Celtic punk band from Quincy, Massachusetts, respectfully confront a fan wearing a MAGA shirt.

And here’s a rather good—and quick—takedown of Musk.

The recent issue on Donald Trump’s love affair with revenge provoked many observations.

Doug Jacobson wrote:

I appreciate that you have used your platform to note how the DSM IV provides diagnosis that are useful in understanding Musk and Trump. Both certainly fit the criteria for Sociopathic Personality Disorder. Both men can also be diagnosed as having a narcissistic personality disorder. Many of us with professional clinical backgrounds been noting this for as long as Trump and now Musk have reigned. Sadly, the Dems and reporters have ignored this critical information. I encourage you to check out the criteria.

It is also important to note that the personality disorder classification means that these are very deep-rooted psychological traits that are highly resistant to change. The roots of these personality disorder traits are found in the individual's childhood experiences—i.e., look at the relationships these men had with their fathers. (Musk's father was a Dutch colonizer of South Africa who supported apartheid. He was physically abusive to both Elon and his mother. His mother finally left the marriage and took Elon to Canada. Mary Trump has described Trump's father's role in creating him.) This early childhood damage cannot be healed without sincere efforts over many years of therapy.

The massive team of lawyers at Our Land World Headquarters asked me to note that Elon Musk’s father has denied abusing his wife and his son.

Michael Eckel responded to the issue covering Trump’s recent speech to Congress:

I am not a tech genius. However, I had a thought while watching the speech before the Congress. Could AI be used, in conjunction with all broadcasts of a live political speech, to provide an accurate, real-time fact-check, using a chyron, which would immediately flash red and provide context. Might this also be required to be on a screen on the podium and visible in the venue for all those in attendance. Yes, I realize AI still needs to improve some. But as Trump droned on about the statistics of supposedly dead people potentially receiving Social Security checks, an AI prompt (in theory, not partisan or biased) indicating the comments were at a minimum misleading, if not outright false, would alert the viewer almost immediately. The more red, the more the speech is full of falsehoods.

My sense is candidates who believe in truth and honesty would have to begin to use this tool, and those who do not utilize the tool could be shamed into using it. There just has to be some way to help truth become front and center again, and might technology, which over the past 10-15 years has done so much to facilitate the spread of disinformation, be used to finally emphasis the truth, and minimize disinformation? I can dream, can't I?

That’s a fun dream. News networks are certainly free to do this now without AI. They could run a scroll alongside any politician pointing out lies as they occur. An automated mechanism run by AI seems a bit dicey. Who controls the algorithm? And I doubt even truth-telling politicians would want to be submitted to such automated reviews. But the way things are going these days, I’d almost rather have AI overlords in charge than the Trump-Musk crew. 

Mike Brennan reacted to my thoughts about many Democrats being MIA in this time of need:

I understand your frustration about the Democrats. As you know, American middle-class workers have lost half their share of national productivity since the ’70s. This didn’t happen without help from the Democratic Party, and it certainly needed a big dollop of apathy from middle-class workers themselves.  

Democrats are simply the more benign of the two parties, but they certainly participated in losses in the constitutional rights arena. The office of Homeland Security has shredded our privacy. The Iraq war was basically an Arab slaughter. The mishandling of the last election was unconscionable, and Joe Biden’s pardons have just escalated a presidential tit-for-tat that will allow every future president to disregard the rule of law and pardon the minions after.

We are entering an era of immense change and neither side is tethered to the Constitution. It is an anachronism. Clearly, Trump engaged in insurrection; clearly, he’s accepting emoluments. My advice would be, think about how to effect a new national order, not about how to patch the old one.

Good points, Mike. Over the last few decades, the Democrats have failed on multiple fronts. But I wonder if the time it takes to work up a new national order—whatever that could be—will only allow Trump and his gang to impose their version of a new national order. 

Michael Scanlon replied to the issue on Trump’s ongoing bromance with Putin:

Why the bromance with Putin? Because being POTUS is not Trump’s main interest. To be president, one has to compromise, share the limelight, be diplomatic, and even take a loss. All these things show weakness, and Trump hates weak people. What he really desires is to be a macho dictator like Putin. Dictators get all the perks that Trump relishes. 

Trump does seem to admire and respect Putin far more than he does Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. That says a whole lot.

“I think it’s time for you to take a break.”

“Moxie, there’s a trade war, measles, illegal arrests, horrific deportations of law-abiding people, the evisceration of pollution laws, grift and corruption, a decline in retirement funds, selling out Ukraine, blocking funds for vital medical research, a war on universities, massive firings, harmful budget cuts, a variety of assaults on democracy, and the price of eggs is going up.”

“I love eggs. What’s happening with eggs? Will I not get eggs anymore? We have to do something about that.”

“All politics are local.”