Means test Congress first
Social Security really is an entitlement. You paid in. Congress owes you.
The net worth of the 9 Supreme Court justices ranges from $2 million (Ketanji Brown Jackson) to $25 million (John Roberts).
The net worth of Members of Congress is pretty interesting. Roughly half (260-270) have a net worth of more than $2 million.
35 (7%) have a net worth of $10 million or more.
10 (2%) have a net worth of $100 million or more—topped by West Virginia Senator Jim Justice. Hey, a Rockefeller was our senator for 30 years.
JD Vance’s net worth is $10 million, while President Trump is said to have a few bucks.
Why are we paying the 9 justices, half of Congress and the vice president anything?
The nation is headed toward a national debt of $40 trillion. Paying salaries to multi-millionaires is ruining the program. They should all follow the example set by our favorite president and forgo a salary.
Means test all federal pay and all federal pensions. Why should Tony Fauci get a dime in pension? Federal employees are not covered by ERISA. Certainly a politically appointed person is not.
If your net worth is $2 million or more, you get nothing because you are a multi-millionaire and the government is headed toward a national debt of $50 trillion in 10 years. No salary. No pension. No free coffee in the office.
(Stick with me, federal readers. I am making a point.)
Let’s start with Senator Rand Paul, whose net worth is $2 million, making him a multi-millionaire. Hey Grok, what’s he saying about Social Security?
In a November 4, 2025, appearance on Fox Business, Sen. Paul explicitly advocated for means testing Social Security benefits as part of a broader reform package. He suggested:
Gradually raising the full retirement age (similar to the 1983 reforms).
Implementing means testing to reduce benefits for higher earners or those with significant assets.
Avoiding heavy tax increases on workers.
Rationale: Paul argued this would prevent a 25% across-the-board benefit cut in 2034 without overburdening current workers. He framed it as “keeping our promises” to both current and future retirees by addressing the math of the program’s $22.4 trillion long-term shortfall (per 2025 Trustees Report).
Context: This aligns with broader Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget proposals from early 2025, which represent ~80% of House Republicans and emphasize reforms like raising the retirement age but have not yet formalized means testing in legislation. Paul’s comments drew mixed reactions, with critics calling it a “penalty for saving” and supporters viewing it as fiscal responsibility.
The Social Security Trust fund has a $2.4 trillion surplus.
The rest of government has $38 trillion deficit.
Over the years, Congress borrowed $38,000,000,000,000 to fund such things as foreign aid, SNAP, school bureaucracies, the Big Dig boondoggle and plenty more—but Rand Paul opposes borrowing a dime to tide Social Security over until the baby boomers die off and the trust fund rebuilds?
Congress is the reason Social Security is in trouble. Dropping the age for benefits to 62 and adding a COLA are drying up the trust fund. Raise the minimum retirement age to 65 again or ending the COLA would be politically unpopular. The only thing to do is what the rest of the government does—borrow money.
By calling to means test the rest of government, Senator Paul wants to renege on the nation’s promise made 90 years ago and turn Social Security into a welfare program. Maybe we can DEI it up while we are at it and boost the checks for people based on sex or race to make up for past discrimination.
The panic about Social Security running out of money is all blue smoke and mirrors done with the goal of giving Congress more control of the American economy. We have seen how well Congress handles money. For every $2 we give in taxes, Congress spends $3.
Congress used the income tax to redistribute wealth.
Don’t bother fighting communism. It already is here and Ford brought it in 50 years ago with the Earned Income Tax Credit as a short-term way of easing the effect of an increase in Social Security taxes (an insurance premium).
Carter and Congress made it permanent in 1978.
Grok said that through child tax credits and the like, 28 million “taxpayers” (25%) received a refund that exceeded their tax liability last year.
Senator Paul’s insistence on not borrowing a dime to keep Social Security going while Congress borrows billions for all the other social welfare programs is ludicrous.
Many readers don’t like FDR and for good reason but he did give us Social Security in 1935 and we are stuck with it.
In the summer of 1941, FDR said, “I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.”
He stuck us good, didn’t he?
A promise is a promise.
The 16-year-old Don Surber paid in because his elders assured him that he could live off Social Security when he was old and feeble. Well, I’m 72 now and I accept the check each month even though some people may believe I don’t need it. I am not a multi-millionaire but Rand Paul is. Let him lose his check, not me.
All of the above are true, by the way.
Congress has proven they are "non essential". They shouldn't get paid during shutdowns. They also shouldn't get paid if they vote to increase the federal debt limit.
There's a huge difference between federal pensions earned from federal employment, and social security/railroad retirement pensions.
Federal pensions are defined benefit pensions which almost no one in the private sector receives any longer. Why do government employees at every level (local, state, and federal) still qualify for and obtain defined benefit pensions when the people whose economy they oversee can no longer obtain them because they were deemed unsustainable? Not only is there not enough money to pay for them, the reserves required to fund them are criminally and incompetently neglected. Government pensions are an actual problem compared to SS.