ReportWire

Tag: Social Security

  • How would a government shutdown affect Social Security recipients?

    [ad_1]

    Even if a U.S. government shutdown begins on Oct. 1, the 74 million Americans who collect Social Security will continue receiving their monthly checks, although some services could be disrupted due to a potential halt in federal activities, according to experts. 

    Social Security benefits are covered by mandatory spending, which means that the funding for the program has already been approved by Congress without an expiration date. As a result, Social Security recipients including retirees, disabled Americans and the dependents of deceased workers wouldn’t see an interruption in their monthly payments if the government shuts down.

    However, other Social Security services could be impacted by a shutdown, according to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. The Social Security Administration’s working budget requires approval from Congress, with lawmakers currently at loggerheads over funding the federal government past Sept. 30. 

    If an agreement isn’t reached before then, some Social Security services could be temporarily halted until the issue is resolved, according to both the Social Security Administration and experts on the retirement program.

    “The system hasn’t missed a payment in its entire 90-year history and won’t start now,” Max Richtman, CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare said in an email. “But customer service at the Social Security Administration (SSA) may be disrupted, including benefit verifications, earnings record corrections and updates, overpayments processing, and replacing Medicare cards.”

    In preparation for past shutdowns, each federal agency has created a contingency plan for their operations, with some employees expected to work without pay because they’re considered to be providing essential services. 

    In an email to CBS News, the SSA said beneficiaries would continue to receive payments even if the government closes.

    “In the event of a lapse in appropriation, SSA will follow the contingency plan for continued activities, and Social Security beneficiaries would continue receiving their Social Security, Social Security Disability Insurance, and SSI payments,” an agency spokesperson said.

    When is the next Social Security payment? 

    Social Security payments would continue to go out as usual during a shutdown, with recipients of Supplemental Security Income — a program for low-income and disabled people — scheduled to receive their next checks on Oct. 1. 

    Social Security recipients will receive their checks on their usual schedule, which is based on their birth date. Those born between the 1st to 10th of their birth month will receive payment on Oct. 8, while those born between the 11th to 20th days will receive their payment on Oct. 15. People born between the 21st and the last day of their birth month will get their check on Oct. 22. 

    “If you’re a Social Security recipient, you’re going to get your check, and that’s obviously a good thing,” Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacific Research Institute, a think tank focused on free trade, told CBS News. 

    Which Social Security services could be impacted? 

    That would depend on how many SSA employees are deemed to be essential, according to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. 

    In a Sept. 24 contingency plan published by the SSA, the agency said about 45,000 employees — almost 90% of its workforce — would stay on the job in case of a shutdown. Another roughly 6,200 workers would be furloughed, according to the planning document. 

    “We will continue activities critical to our direct-service operations and those needed to ensure accurate and timely payment of benefits,” the plan states. “We will cease activities not directly related to the accurate and timely payment of benefits or not critical to our direct-service operations.”

    According to the new plan, the following are services that would be halted during a shutdown:

    • Benefit verifications
    • Earnings record corrections and updates unrelated to the adjudication of benefits
    • Payee accountings
    • Prisoner activities — suspension
    • Requests from third parties for queries
    • Freedom of Information Act requests
    • IT enhancement activities, public relations and training
    • Replacement Medicare cards
    • Overpayments processing

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How a government shutdown would give Trump more power

    [ad_1]

    A fight between Republicans and Democrats could lead to an Oct. 1 federal government shutdown. 

    Democrats are trying to leverage the must-pass bill to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies; the Trump administration is tying a shutdown to potential mass federal worker layoffs.

    The current battle focuses on expiring subsidies for the Affordable Care Act that Democrats say will hurt the ability of millions of enrollees to afford insurance. Democrats have also said they want to reverse Medicaid cuts that Trump signed into law this summer.

    Republicans are seeking a bill to temporarily extend federal spending at current levels without any add-ons.

    If the government shuts down, President Donald Trump and his administration — which has already defied norms on executive power — likely will seek to exert more power. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Trump’s Office of Management and Budget under Russell Vought has moved with more executive authority over spending, which is typically left to Congress. The administration took steps to cancel foreign aid and asserted power to withhold billions of domestic spending.  

    “I would expect this shutdown to look different than any other shutdown,” said Joshua Sewell, Taxpayers for Common Sense director of research and policy. He said he expects that the Trump team’s actions would be guided by what they believe achieves the most for them politically.

    Trump could use a shutdown to dismantle government functions, wrote Max Stier, chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit focused on improving the federal government.

    If lawmakers can’t reach a deal, Stier wrote, Trump and Vought “will have enormous latitude to determine which services, programs, and employees can be sidelined, decisions that could go far beyond what has occurred during past shutdowns.”

    Beyond the Antideficiency Act, which says the government cannot spend money or incur debts without Congress’ authority, the shutdown process has historically been guided by traditions, not laws.

    In recent past shutdowns, hundreds of thousands of employees were furloughed, but the shutdowns did not result in mass permanent layoffs or significant reorganizations. Under federal law, federal workers also receive back pay for their time on furlough.

    Trump and his congressional allies would be in charge of the government amid a shutdown. What can Trump do on his own?

    OMB told agencies to “consider” layoff notices

    A sign posted Oct. 1, 2013, on a barricade in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.,  tells visitors it’s closed because of a government shutdown. (AP)

    The Trump administration has already reduced the workforce by about 200,000, a number that could grow to 300,000 by the end of the year, Stier wrote. The administration gutted some agencies and programs including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Voice of America.

    OMB provided an email, first published by Politico, that it sent to agency heads that said agencies should consider sending “reduction in force” notices to employees whose programs are “not consistent with the President’s priorities” or lack mandatory funding or another source of funding, such as the tax and spending legislation H.R. 1, which became law in July.

    Rachel Greszler, a workforce expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the administration hasn’t mandated layoffs, but directed agencies to “consider” issuing such notices “as a way to let federal employees know which of their jobs could be on the line if Congress reduces their agency’s funding.” 

    This signals to Democrats that health care funding demands could backfire, she said, potentially causing further reductions in the size of the federal government.

    Several questions remain, including how many employees could face layoffs and when. The memo says once fiscal year 2026 appropriations are enacted, agencies should revise their plans to reduce staff.

    “I believe this memo indicates OMB will pursue a dual path of shutdown-related furloughs and a separate process of mass layoffs,” Sewell said. Whether the layoffs happen before or after funding is restored “is an open question,” Sewell said. “This certainly indicates the administration wants to cut these agencies and programs at any opportunity either now or in the future.”

    Experts offered mixed opinions about whether layoffs would hold up in court. Any such process must follow the rules, such as a 60-day written notice

    “A shutdown provides no new legal authority to engage in widespread firings,” said Sam Berger, who works for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and who worked at OMB during the Biden and Obama administrations. 

    Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader from New York, said the memo is an “attempt at intimidation” and predicted such firings would be reversed. 

    Social Security checks and other mandatory spending will continue

    Mandatory spending — ongoing spending that does not require periodic extensions from Congress — generally continues during a shutdown. This means Americans would still receive Social Security checks and be able to use Medicare and Medicaid.

    In previous shutdowns, border protection, medical care in hospitals, air traffic control, law enforcement and power grid maintenance were deemed essential and remained active during the shutdown.

    Even continued services can be disrupted. During the 2018-19 shutdown, holiday travelers faced delays as many unpaid TSA staff and air traffic controllers didn’t come to work.

    Administrations have a lot of leeway to define “essential” workers. During the 2013 shutdown, the Obama administration closed national parks. In 2018, the Trump administration kept many national parks open with limited services using previously paid park entrance fees to cover personnel costs; the Government Accountability Office concluded that this violated federal law.

    The second-term Trump administration is expected to continue priorities such as immigration enforcement and might try to focus cuts on areas that have already been slashed. Trump campaigned on a promise to abolish the Education Department, and his administration has shrunk the Environmental Protection Agency

    There have been four shutdowns in recent decades that lasted more than one business day, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

    RELATED: Yes, ACA subsidies cut and premium rise could mean your health insurance bill goes up 75%

    RELATED: Fact-check: Past government shutdowns cost the U.S. economy billions

    RELATED: MAGA-Meter: Trump’s second term

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Goodbye, paper checks: Social Security payments to go electronic starting next week

    [ad_1]

    After 85 years of sending out paper checks to retirees, the Social Security Administration (SSA) is transitioning to electronic payments in what it says is an effort to modernize its services and improve efficiency.

    Starting Sept. 30, the SSA will no longer issue paper checks to its nearly 70 million recipients, instead sending benefits through either direct deposit or a prepaid debit card. 

    “We have been communicating directly with beneficiaries since July 1, and we have worked diligently to ensure that the less than one percent of individuals who receive paper checks have ample time to enroll in direct deposit or receive Direct Express cards,” a Social Security spokesperson told CBS MoneyWatch in an email on Tuesday.

    “By moving to electronic payments exclusively, we aim to improve efficiency, security, and ensure beneficiaries receive their monthly benefits promptly,” they added.

    The Social Security Administration has emphasized that electronic payments provide a safer and more secure way to receive benefits compared with paper checks, which the agency says are 16 times more likely to be lost or stolen. Eliminating paper checks is also a cost-saving measure: Checks cost 50 cents each, compared with 15 cents for an electronic funds transfer.

    In an online post, the Social Security Administration said it was sending notices to people who receive paper checks to alert them of the change. The agency encouraged paper check recipients to switch to the new payment options before the deadline to ensure they receive their benefits in a timely fashion. 

    The Social Security spokesperson declined to comment on how people were contacted or on the current status of its outreach.

    Exceptions for some paper checks 

    While the agency is pulling away from paper checks, there are some exceptions. The spokesperson confirmed to CBS MoneyWatch that the agency will continue to issue paper checks to people who have no other way to receive payments, echoing what it told CBS News in July after it announced the move to electronic payments.

    President Donald Trump set the shift away from paper checks in motion with a March 2025 executive order that mandated all federal payments be digitized. Paper-based checks, the White House said at the time, impose “unnecessary costs; delays; and risks of fraud, lost payments, theft, and inefficiencies.”

    Advocates including Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, have argued that the roughly 600,000 people who rely on the agency’s original payment system often need paper checks because they’re unable to receive electronic deposits.

    This classic poster was distributed from November 1936 to November 1937 during the initial issuance of Social Security numbers through U.S. post offices and with the help of labor unions.

    Social Security Administration


    That includes people who are “unbanked,” or those who lack access to traditional bank accounts. According to an August report from Bankrate, the unbanked represent 4.6% of the U.S. population, and tend to rely more on check-cashing services and other alternative forms of payment to manage their finances.

    While the Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it wasn’t until 1940 that the agency began sending paper checks to retired workers and their dependents as well as to survivors of deceased insured workers. The first recipient of the monthly benefit was a woman named Ida M. Fuller

    A Vermont native, Fuller worked as a teacher before becoming a legal secretary. After filing her retirement claim in 1939, she stopped by the Social Security office in Rutland, Vermont, the town where she once attended school, to inquire about her benefits. She had paid into the relatively new program for about three years, according to the Social Security Administration.

    “It wasn’t that I expected anything, mind you, but I knew I’d been paying for something called Social Security and I wanted to ask the people in Rutland about it,” she said.

    Fuller’s first monthly check, issued on January 31, 1940, was for $22.54.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How retirees can stop fake debt collector scams

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    You pick up the phone and hear a stern voice claiming you owe money. Maybe it’s for a credit card you don’t recognize, a loan you never took out or some old bill you thought was long gone. Panic sets in, especially if the caller threatens arrest, wage garnishment or lawsuits.

    Unfortunately, this scenario is becoming all too common. Scammers are posing as debt collectors, and retirees are among their favorite targets. Even legitimate debt collection companies have crossed the line. One such company was ordered to pay over $8 million for harassing people into paying fake debts.

    The good news? With a little knowledge and some practical steps, you can spot these calls, protect yourself and stop them before they get too close for comfort.

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    JURY DUTY PHONE SCAMS ON THE RISE AS FRAUDSTERS IMPERSONATE LOCAL OFFICIALS, THREATEN ARREST

    A 96-year-old woman sits in an armchair in her apartment in Germany on Sept. 1, 2025, and makes a phone call.  (Matthias Balk/picture alliance via Getty Images)

    Why retirees are prime targets

    Scammers don’t call at random. Retirees often make ideal marks because:

    • Less frequent monitoring: Many retirees check credit reports and bank accounts less often, making it easier for fraud to go unnoticed.
    • Accumulated assets: Retirement savings, pensions and home equity make seniors look “cash-rich” to scammers.
    • Trust factor: Politeness and trust on the phone can be exploited.
    • Less tech-savvy: Some retirees feel less comfortable with online verification.

    This combination creates a perfect storm for fake debt collection scams.

    Red flags of fake debt collector calls

    Recognizing the signs can stop scammers in their tracks.

    • Immediate threats or pressure: Real collectors cannot threaten arrest or use abusive language under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
    • Unusual payment methods: Gift cards, wire transfers and cryptocurrency are red flags. Legitimate collectors use checks, debit or bank payments.
    • Refusal to verify debt: If they won’t send written proof, hang up.
    • Mismatch with public records: Fake companies often use official-sounding names that don’t exist.

    Requests for unrelated personal information: Collectors don’t need your Social Security number or bank logins.

    FAKE AGENT PHONE SCAMS ARE SPREADING FAST ACROSS THE US

    An elderly person hanging up a phone

    Kurt “Cyberguy” Knutsson lays out red flags of fake debt collector calls. (Matthias Balk/picture alliance via Getty Images)

    How to safely verify debt collector calls

    Even if a call raises red flags, it’s essential to verify the information before taking action. Here’s how:

    1) Request written verification

    Under the FDCPA, you have the right to ask for a debt validation letter. This document should include:

    • The creditor’s name
    • Original amount owed
    • Verification that the collector is legally authorized to collect the debt.

    Ask for this before paying or sharing any personal info.

    2 Look up the collector

    Check with state attorneys general offices or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Verify that the company exists and is licensed to collect in your state.

    3) Contact the original creditor

    If you recognize the debt or think it may be legitimate, call the creditor directly using a verified phone number. Do not rely on the caller’s number; scammers often spoof official-looking numbers.

    4) Use trusted resources

    The FTC offers a “Debt Collection” section on its website with tips and complaint forms. If you suspect fraud, filing a report can help stop the scammers from targeting others.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    A woman on the phone

    Experts warn retirees to be vigilant regarding fake debt collector calls. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)

    Pro tip: Extra step to protect your personal information

    Fraudsters rely on personal data to make calls sound convincing. Reducing the amount of information available about you online lowers your risk. Data brokers collect and sell details like your name, phone, address and even past debts. A data removal service can automatically remove your data from hundreds of broker sites, making it harder for scammers to find and target you.

    While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice.  They aren’t cheap, and neither is your privacy. These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.

    Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com.

    Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: Cyberguy.com.

    When and where to report a scam

    If you’ve encountered a fake debt collector, report them right away:

    • FTC: File at FTC.gov
    • State Attorney General: Use the consumer complaint division in your state
    • CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau): Submit a complaint online at consumerfinance.gov/complaint/or by phone

    Reporting helps protect other retirees from falling victim.

    Kurt’s key takeaways

    Protecting your retirement isn’t just about managing your savings; it’s about defending your personal information, too. Scammers thrive on fear, urgency and trust, but you now have the knowledge to push back. By spotting red flags, verifying calls and reducing what’s available about you online, you can stop fake debt collectors in their tracks.

    If a scammer called you tomorrow, would you be ready to spot the lies and protect your hard-earned savings? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How AI browsers open the door to new scams

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    AI browsers are no longer just an idea; they’re already here. Microsoft has built Copilot into Edge, OpenAI is testing a sandboxed browser in agent mode and Perplexity’s Comet is one of the first to fully embrace the concept of browsing for you.

    This is agentic AI stepping into our daily routines, from searching and reading to shopping and clicking. Instead of simply assisting us, these tools are beginning to replace us.

    But with this shift comes a new era of digital deception. AI-powered browsers may promise convenience by handling shopping, emails and other tasks, yet research shows they can stumble into scams faster than humans ever could. This dangerous mix of speed and trust is what experts call Scamlexity, a complex, AI-driven scam landscape where your agent gets tricked, and you pay the price.

    HACKER EXPLOITS AI CHATBOT IN CYBERCRIME SPREE

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    Falling for the same old tricks

    AI browsers are not immune to classic scams. In fact, they can fall for them even faster. When researchers at Guardio Labs told an AI browser to buy an Apple Watch, it confidently completed the purchase on a fake Walmart store set up in minutes. It autofilled personal and payment details without hesitation. The scammer got the money, while the human never saw the red flags.

    AI browsers promise convenience, but security experts warn they can fall for online scams faster than humans. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Handling phishing emails from “your bank”

    Old phishing tactics also remain effective. In testing, researchers at Guardio Labs sent a fake Wells Fargo email to the AI browser. The browser clicked the malicious link with no verification and even helped the user fill out login credentials on the phishing page. By removing human intuition from the loop, the AI created a perfect trust chain that scammers could exploit.

    PromptFix: A modern AI injection scam

    The real danger comes from attacks designed specifically for AI. Researchers at Guardio Labs created PromptFix, a scam disguised as a CAPTCHA page. While humans would only see a checkbox, the AI agent read hidden malicious instructions in the page code. Believing it was “helping,” the AI clicked the button, triggering a download that could have been malware. This type of prompt injection bypasses human awareness and targets the AI’s decision-making directly. Once compromised, the AI can send emails, share files or execute harmful tasks without the user ever knowing.

    The growing risks of AI browsers

    As agentic AI becomes mainstream, scams will scale at an alarming speed. Instead of fooling millions of people individually, attackers need only to compromise one AI model to reach millions at once. Security experts warn this is a structural risk, not just a phishing problem.

    Tips to protect yourself from AI browser scams

    AI browsers can save time, but they can also put you at risk if you rely on them too much. Use these practical steps to stay in control and reduce your chances of becoming a victim.

    1) Stay in control of your AI

    Always double-check sensitive actions like purchases, downloads or logins. Keep final approval in your hands instead of letting the AI complete tasks on its own. This way, you prevent scammers from sneaking past your awareness.

    2) Use a personal data removal service

    Scammers rely on exposed personal details to make their tricks more convincing. A trusted data removal service can help scrub your information from broker sites, reducing the chance that your AI agent hands over details that are already floating around online. While no service can guarantee the complete removal of your data from the internet, a data removal service is really a smart choice. They aren’t cheap, and neither is your privacy. 

    These services do all the work for you by actively monitoring and systematically erasing your personal information from hundreds of websites. It’s what gives me peace of mind and has proven to be the most effective way to erase your personal data from the internet. By limiting the information available, you reduce the risk of scammers cross-referencing data from breaches with information they might find on the dark web, making it harder for them to target you.

    Check out my top picks for data removal services and get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web by visiting Cyberguy.com.

    Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web: Cyberguy.com.

     GOOGLE AI EMAIL SUMMARIES CAN BE HACKED TO HIDE PHISHING ATTACKS

    Person holding up a smartphone.

    AI browsers still click malicious links and autofill login credentials with no human oversight or verification to stop them. (Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

    3) Use strong antivirus software

    Install and keep strong antivirus software updated. It adds an extra line of defense that can catch threats your AI browser may miss, including malicious files and unsafe downloads. The best way to safeguard yourself from malicious links that install malware, potentially accessing your private information, is to have strong antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe.

    Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices at Cyberguy.com.

    4) Consider using a password manager

    A trusted password manager helps you generate and store strong, unique passwords. It can also alert you if the AI agent tries to reuse weak or compromised passwords when logging into sites.

    Next, see if your email has been exposed in past breaches. Our No. 1 password manager pick includes a built-in breach scanner that checks whether your email address or passwords have appeared in known leaks. If you discover a match, immediately change any reused passwords and secure those accounts with new, unique credentials. 

    Check out the best expert-reviewed password managers of 2025 at Cyberguy.com.

    5) Watch your accounts closely

    Review your bank and credit card statements often. If your AI agent shops or manages accounts for you, always cross-check receipts and login records. Quick action on suspicious charges can stop a scam from spreading further.

    6) Beware of hidden AI instructions

    Scammers hide malicious instructions in the code your AI reads, and the agent may follow them without question. If something feels wrong, stop the task and handle it manually.

    HOW AI IS NOW HELPING HACKERS FOOL YOUR BROWSER’S SECURITY TOOLS

    Perplexity logo.

    Kurt’s key takeaways

    AI browsers bring convenience, but they also bring risk. By removing human judgment from critical tasks, they expose a wider scam surface than ever before. Scamlexity is a wake-up call: The AI you trust could be tricked in ways you never see coming. Staying safe means staying alert and demanding stronger guardrails in every AI tool you use.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Would you trust an AI browser to handle your banking and shopping, or is the risk of Scamlexity too high? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

    Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
    Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide – free when you join my CYBERGUY.COM newsletter.

    Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com.  All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security pushes back on Warren, touts transparency and service under Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    The Social Security Administration is pushing back against Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., after she accused the agency of removing key data and covering up dysfunction.

    In a Sept. 16, 2025 letter and data report shared exclusively with Fox News Digital, SSA Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano claimed Warren’s analysis was inaccurate. 

    He said the agency is more transparent and performing better under the Trump administration than it did under the prior administration. The documents reflect SSA’s position and have not been independently verified.

    SSA currently reports nearly three times the number of data elements on the performance webpage under the Trump Administration (30) than it did under the Biden Administration (11),” Bisignano wrote.

    EXCLUSIVE: MEDICAID DIRECTS STATES TO CRACK DOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ENROLLEES WITH MONTHLY CHECKS

    President Donald Trump poses with Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano in the Oval Office as Trump displays a signed proclamation. (Courtesy of the Social Security Administration)

    “These facts conclusively demonstrate that you are wrong in alleging a lack of transparency.”

    He also pushed back on Warren’s charge of a cover-up, saying SSA has made improvements in customer service, including “shorter wait times on the phones and in offices, as well as reduced backlogs.” Bisignano said 81 percent of performance measures are better than before, with the rest about the same.

    According to SSA’s data, average phone wait times dropped from 29 minutes in 2024 to 16 minutes in 2025, with August down to just 9 minutes.

    SOCIAL SECURITY STRONGER UNDER TRUMP, CRITICS PUSHING ‘FALSE’ NARRATIVE, COMMISSIONER SAYS

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren

    Senator Warren penned a letter earlier this month claiming the Social Security Administration had become less transparent under President Trump’s leadership. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Pending disability determinations fell from nearly 1.2 million in August 2024 to about 907,000 a year later. Disability claim processing sped up from 231 days to 217 days. SSA reports retirement and survivor claims were processed on time 87% of the time in August 2025.

    Bisignano wrote that the agency’s goal is to become a “digital-first” operation that runs efficiently and serves people whether they call, visit an office or use the website. He said constant monitoring of key performance indicators is part of that effort.

    Social Security building

    Wait times are down according to a September report exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital from the Social Security Administration. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, File)

    He also urged Warren to work with SSA instead of spreading what he called “fearmongering and reckless lies that Social Security is going away.”

    “The time has come to stop weaponizing Social Security,” he wrote. “The American people do not want a Social Security War Room. They want their leaders to protect and preserve Social Security, just as President Trump has promised.”

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    The office of Senator Elizabeth Warren did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security cost-of-living adjustment could increase 2.7% in 2026, according to a new estimate

    [ad_1]

    Social Security beneficiaries could see a 2.7% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2026, which is slightly above the 2.5% increase U.S. retirees received in 2025.

    That’s according to an estimate from the Senior Citizens League, which recently posted its latest COLA prediction based on August inflation figures figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Virginia advocacy group has released nine COLA estimates so far this year, based on monthly BLS data. 

    According to the group, a 2.7% COLA would raise the average monthly benefit for retired workers by $54, from $2,008 to $2,062. The Senior Citizens League predicted the same cost-of-living adjustment in August.

    The cost-of-living adjustment has averaged 2.6% over the last 20 years, according to the Senior Citizens League. A COLA of 2.7% would be higher than this year’s adjustment of 2.5%, but below the 3.2% boost seniors received in 2024. 

    The Social Security Administration (SSA) makes a cost-of-living adjustment each year based on inflation data from July, August and September. Thursday’s CPI report shows that the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), the figure the SSA uses to make its annual adjustment, increased 2.8% on an annual basis in August, up from 2.5% the month prior.

    The SSA is scheduled to announce its adjustment in October, which would go into effect in January 2026. “This year, the COLA will be determined on October 15, when the Bureau of Labor and Statistics releases the CPI-W for September,” the agency told CBS MoneyWatch.

    The COLA is intended to ensure that benefits payments for U.S. seniors keep pace with inflation. However, economists have warned that a 2.7% adjustment may not be enough to stave off the inflationary pressures Americans are facing. 

    The CPI report released Thursday suggest that inflation is on the rise with CPI rising 2.9% on an annual basis in August compared to 2.7% in July. Imported products such as coffee and furniture have grown more expensive since last year, which economists point out could be due to tariffs pushing up prices. 

    Routine monthly paycheck reductions for certain Social Security recipients could also cancel out the cost-of-living adjustment, Shannon Benton, the executive director of the Senior Citizens League, told CBS MoneyWatch in an email. 

    “The latest projection of a 2.7% cost-of-living adjustment for 2026 is certainly better than nothing,” said Benton, “but for many seniors, that gain may quickly disappear once higher Medicare Part B premiums are deducted, turning what should be a raise into a wash.” 

    She added, “For those living on fixed incomes, it’s another reminder of the gap between benefits and real-world costs.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Untold Saga of What Happened When DOGE Stormed Social Security

    [ad_1]

    ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

    On Feb. 10, on the third floor of the Social Security Administration’s Baltimore-area headquarters, Leland Dudek unfurled a 4-foot-wide roll of paper that extended to 20 feet in length. It was a visual guide that the agency had kept for years to explain Social Security’s many technological systems and processes. The paper was covered in flow charts, arrows and text so minuscule you almost needed a magnifying glass to read it. Dudek called it Social Security’s “Dead Sea Scroll.”

    Dudek and a fellow Social Security Administration bureaucrat taped the scroll across a wall of a windowless executive office. This was where a team from the new Department of Government Efficiency was going to set up shop.

    DOGE was already terrifying the federal bureaucracy with the prospect of mass job loss and intrusions into previously sacrosanct databases. Still, Dudek and a handful of his tech-oriented colleagues were hopeful: If any agency needed a dose of efficiency, it was theirs. “There was kind of an excitement, actually,” a longtime top agency official said. “I’d spent 29 years trying to use technology and data in ways that the agency would never get around to.”

    The Social Security Administration is 90 years old. Even today, thousands of its physical records are stored in former limestone mines in Missouri and Pennsylvania. Its core software dates back to the early 1980s, and only a few programmers remain who understand the intricacies of its more than 60 million lines of code. The agency has been talking about switching from paper Social Security cards to electronic ones for two decades, without making it happen.

    DOGE, billed as a squad of crack technologists, seemed perfectly designed to overcome such obstacles. And its young members were initially inquisitive about how Social Security worked and what most needed fixing. Several times over those first few days, Akash Bobba, a 21-year-old coder who’d been the first of them to arrive, held his face close to Dudek’s scroll, tracing connections between the agency’s venerable IT systems with his index finger. Bobba asked: “Who would know about this part of the architecture?”

    Before long, though, he and the other DOGErs buried their heads in their laptops and plugged in their headphones. Their senior leaders had already written out goals on a whiteboard. At the top: Find fraud. Quickly.

    Dudek’s scroll was forgotten. The heavy paper started to unpeel from the wall, and it eventually sagged to the floor.

    It only got worse from there, said Dudek, who would — improbably — be named acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, a position he held through May. In 15 hours of interviews with ProPublica, Dudek described the chaos of working with DOGE and how he tried first to collaborate, and then to protect the agency, resulting in turns that were at various times alarming, confounding and tragicomic.

    DOGE, he said, began acting like “a bunch of people who didn’t know what they were doing, with ideas of how government should run — thinking it should work like a McDonald’s or a bank — screaming all the time.”

    The shock troops of DOGE, at the Social Security Administration and myriad other federal agencies, were the advance guard in perhaps the most dramatic transformation of the U.S. government since the New Deal. And despite the highly public departure of DOGE’s leader, Elon Musk, that campaign continues today. Key DOGE team members have transitioned to permanent jobs at the SSA, including as the agency’s top technology officials. The 19-year-old whose self-anointed moniker — “Big Balls” — has made him one of the most memorable DOGErs joined the agency this summer.

    The DOGE philosophy has been embraced by the SSA’s commissioner, Frank Bisignano, who was confirmed by the Senate in May. “Your bias has to be — because mine is — that DOGE is helping make things better,” Bisignano told senior officials weeks after replacing Dudek, according to a recording obtained by ProPublica. “It may not feel that way, but don’t believe everything you read.”

    In a statement, a Social Security Administration spokesperson said that Bisignano has made “notable” initial progress and that “the initiatives underway will continue to strengthen service delivery and enhance the integrity and efficiency of our systems.” The statement asserted that “under President Trump’s leadership and his commitment to protect and preserve Social Security, Commissioner Bisignano is strengthening Social Security and the programs it provides for Americans now and in the future.”

    For all the controversy DOGE has generated, its time at the Social Security Administration has not amounted to looming armageddon, as some Democrats warn. What it’s been, as much as anything, is a missed opportunity, according to interviews with more than 35 current or recently departed Social Security officials and staff, who spoke on the condition of anonymity mostly out of fear of retaliation by the Trump administration, and a review of hundreds of pages of internal documents, emails and court records.

    The DOGE team, and Bisignano, have prioritized scoring quick wins that allow them to post triumphant tweets and press releases — especially, in the early months, about an essentially nonexistent form of fraud — while squandering the chance for systemic change at an agency that genuinely needs it.

    They could have worked to modernize Social Security’s legacy software, the current and former staffers say. They could have tried to streamline the stupefying volume of documentation that many Social Security beneficiaries have to provide. They could have built search tools to help staff navigate the agency’s 60,000 pages of policies. (New hires often need at least three years to master the nuances of even one type of case.) They could have done something about wait times for disability claims and appeals, which often take over a year.

    They did none of these things.

    Ultimately, no one had a more complete view of the missed opportunity than Lee Dudek. A 48-year-old with a shaved pate and a broad build that suggests an aging former linebacker, Dudek is a figure seemingly native to the universe of President Donald Trump — an unlikely holder of a key post, elevated after little or no vetting, who briefly attains notoriety in Washington circles before vanishing into obscurity — not unlike Anthony Scaramucci in the first Trump administration.

    Dudek, a midlevel bureaucrat with blunt confidence and a preference for his own ideas, had failed in his one past attempt to manage a small team within the SSA, leading him and his supervisors to conclude he shouldn’t oversee others. Despite that, Trump made him the boss of 57,500 people as acting commissioner of the agency this spring.

    Dudek got the job, wittingly or not, through an end-run around his bosses. After Trump won the 2024 election and rumors of a cost-cutting-and-efficiency SWAT team began to swirl, Dudek asked people he knew at big tech companies for introductions to potential DOGE members. In December, a contact set him up with Musk’s right-hand man, Steve Davis, which led to conversations with other DOGE figures about how they could “hack” Social Security’s bureaucracy to “get to yes,” Dudek said.

    By February, Dudek had become the conduit between DOGE and the SSA, alerting top agency officials that DOGE wanted to work at headquarters. And unlike Michelle King, the acting agency chief at the time, Dudek was willing to speed up the new-hire training process to give DOGE access to virtually all of the SSA’s databases. This precipitated a sequence of events that began with him being placed on administrative leave, where he wrote a LinkedIn post that propelled him into the public eye for the first time: “I confess,” he posted. “I helped DOGE understand SSA. … I confess. I … circumvented the chain of command to connect DOGE with the people who get stuff done.” The same weekend, King resigned and Dudek, who was at home in his underwear watching MSNBC, got an email stating that the president of the United States had appointed him commissioner.

    Between February and May, when Dudek’s tenure ended, his erratic rhetoric and decisions routinely madefront-page news. He was often portrayed as a DOGE patsy, perhaps even a fool. But in his interviews with ProPublica this summer, he revealed himself to be a much more complex figure, a disappointed believer in DOGE’s potential, who maintains he did what he could to protect Social Security’s mission under duress.

    Dudek is the first agency head to speak in detail on the record about what it is like to be thrust into such an important position under Trump. He told ProPublica that he decided to speak because he wishes that “those who govern” would have more frank and honest conversations with the public.

    To the 73 million Americans whose financial lives depend on the viability of Social Security, those first months were a seesaw of apprehension and rumor. Inside the agency, Dudek, ill-prepared for leadership or for DOGE’s murky agenda, was stumbling through the chaos in part by creating some of his own.

    Dudek knows what it’s like to depend on Social Security. When he was a kid in Saginaw, Michigan, his mother turned to Social Security disability benefits to support him and his siblings after she got injured at a Ford-affiliated parts factory; she also had a mental-health breakdown. (Dudek’s now-deceased father, who worked for General Motors, was alternately abusive and absent, according to the family.)

    At school, Dudek was isolated and bullied for being poor, his sister told ProPublica, and he’s had an underdog’s quick temper ever since. But he was always an advanced student, and he developed an early interest in computer science and politics. As a teenager, he often watched C-Span. He was fascinated, he said, by “how government worked and how it could change people’s lives.”

    Dudek arrived in Washington in 1995 to attend Catholic University of America. He was the type of earnest young man who was enthralled by President Bill Clinton’s campaign at the time to “reinvent government” by injecting it with private sector-style efficiency, much as Trump and DOGE later said they would.

    In college, he also displayed the tendency to buck authority that would mark his professional career. He had a night job running the university’s computer labs; if there were problems, he was supposed to call his boss. He wasn’t supposed to install new software on all the computers, but that’s what he did. It worked, although he got a talking-to about knowing his role.

    After graduating, Dudek spent nearly a decade working for tech companies that contracted with the federal government on modernization projects, before migrating to several jobs within federal agencies themselves.

    In 2009, he arrived at the Social Security Administration as an IT security official. The agency was just like the Saginaw he’d run from, Dudek said: an insular, hidebound place where everyone knew everyone and they all thought innovation would cost them their jobs.

    But the SSA wasn’t the only institution at fault. Congress had enacted byzantine eligibility requirements for disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits, forcing the agency to expend huge amounts of time and money running those programs. At the same time, lawmakers had capped the agency’s administrative funding just as tens of millions of Baby Boomers were aging into retirement, exploding Social Security’s rolls. (The SSA is now at its lowest staffing level in a half-century, even as it has taken on 40 million more beneficiaries.)

    Because of the SSA’s stultifying culture, Dudek said, he leaned into his insubordinate streak. He had the sense that he could do it better, and when he felt like his proposals weren’t receiving money or attention, he went around his superiors. In one instance, he approached potential partners at credit card companies, hoping they would like his ideas for combating fraud and would relay those ideas to the Social Security commissioner at the time. “Certainly from an internal perspective within SSA, certainly from a congressional perspective, I was violating rules,” Dudek said.

    In part because of moves like this, Dudek got reassigned within the agency several times. Over the years, he was given multiple roles as a “senior adviser,” a title he said is for federal employees who are either incompetent but too established to fire or highly competent in a technical way but lacking in management or people skills.

    Dudek was stubborn. He could come off as a know-it-all, and he tended to ramble when speaking. But he is also thoughtful and well read. In our interviews, he brought up everything from the origins of the concept of Social Security among sociologists and psychologists in the Depression era to the bureaucrats who were left behind in faraway places after the decline of the British Empire. He repeatedly cited James Q. Wilson’s seminal 1989 book, “Bureaucracy,” which spills considerable ink on the inefficiencies of the Social Security Administration — and on a businessman named Donald J. Trump who supposedly knew how to cut through red tape to get building projects done. (“No such law constrained Trump,” Wilson wrote.)

    Dudek had been a lifelong Democrat and voted for Kamala Harris. But, like some other liberals, he was becoming exasperated with the “administrative state” and special-interest groups, including corporations, unions and social-justice organizations, that “capture” government and stifle reform. If it took Trump to cut through that, Dudek was open-minded. “The world has changed,” he scribbled in a note to himself. “We must change with it.”

    Immediately after Dudek became commissioner in February, he got a call from Scott Coulter, a hedge fund manager with a $12 million Manhattan apartment who’d been picked to lead DOGE’s team at Social Security. “We’re coming,” Coulter said. “Be prepared.”

    DOGE arrived ready to embark on a specific mission: Its operatives at the Treasury Department had seen data suggesting that the Social Security Administration wasn’t keeping its death records up to date. They thought they saw signs of fraudulent payments. Musk was very, very interested.

    Dudek wasn’t initially concerned about this focus, which he and his colleagues viewed as misguided. To him, the young coders were nerdy outsiders just like he’d once been, albeit ones from privileged Ivy League and Silicon Valley backgrounds. They “reminded me of myself when I first got into computers,” he said. He thought he could mold them.

    In particular, Dudek liked Bobba, who had a gentle air and a thick pile of dark hair that covered his forehead. Dudek had spent hours with Bobba, trying to get him to focus on concrete problems like how beneficiaries’ records were stored, often as cumbersome PDF and image files. Instead, Bobba, who did not respond to a request for comment, prioritized Musk’s quest to prove that dead people were receiving Social Security benefits.

    Bobba had completed high school in New Jersey just three and a half years earlier. As a class speaker at his graduation, he’d encouraged his classmates not to ignore “nuance” and “complexity.” He’d lamented the “increasing willingness to simplify even the most complex narratives into sensational tidbits” like “280-character tweets,” which “perpetuates misinformation.”

    Yet Dudek had barely settled in as commissioner when Bobba unintentionally sparked a national misinformation firestorm: A table he created appeared as a screenshot in a grossly misleading Musk tweet about “vampires” over the age of 100 allegedly collecting Social Security checks. Bobba had sorted people with a Social Security number by age and found more than 12 million over 120 years old still listed in the agency’s data.

    Bobba said he knew these people weren’t actually receiving benefits and tried to tell Musk so, to no avail, according to SSA officials. Dudek watched in horror as Trump then shared the same statistics with both houses of Congress and a national television audience, claiming the numbers proved “shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security program for our seniors.” (The White House declined to comment on this episode. Bisignano, the new SSA commissioner, has repeatedlysaid that “the work that DOGE did was 100% accurate.”)

    Inside the SSA, the DOGE team tried to find proof of the fraud that Musk and Trump had proclaimed, but it didn’t seem to know how to go about it, jumping from tactic to tactic. “It was a maelstrom of topic A to topic G to topic C to topic Q,” said a senior SSA official who was in the room. “Were we still helping anything by explaining stuff?” the official said. “It really wasn’t clear by that point.”

    Dudek began to realize that the problem wasn’t primarily the people he called the “DOGE kids.” It was the senior leaders who were issuing orders without heeding what the young DOGErs were learning.

    Dudek was perhaps the most favorably disposed to the outsiders. Plenty of agency officials were already put off by the DOGErs, who often issued peremptory orders to meet with them and answer questions.

    Michelle Kowalski, an analyst who has since departed the agency, was instructed to take one of the DOGE people, Cole Killian, through earnings data and historical records to analyze the cases of extremely old people whose deaths had not been recorded in Social Security data. She found herself having to explain to him, again and again, that many of these people were born before states reported births and deaths to the federal government and decades before the advent of electronic record keeping. In the early days of the agency, some people didn’t even know their birthdays.

    Kowalski had assumed that Killian was middle-aged, since he was issuing instructions to her team. But he usually kept his camera turned off during video meetings. When he finally turned it on for one call, the face she saw seemed like that of a teenager.

    Killian was actually 24, just six years removed from performing “Hotel California” at his high school talent show at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School outside of Boston. (Killian, whose DOGE responsibilities also involved work at the Environmental Protection Agency, did not respond to a request for comment from ProPublica.)

    Kowalski was exasperated by having to answer to such inexperience, even as so many of her colleagues were being pushed out the door by the Trump administration. She was not alone.

    “Many of us had actually believed in the marketed idea of genius technologists coming in to make things work better,” one senior SSA official said. But DOGE ended up being more interested, the official said, in “trying to prove that the Social Security Administration was entirely incompetent” than in suggesting improvements.

    Employees at headquarters took their time walking past the glass-walled conference room where DOGE staffers had set up, glaring in at them as they worked among stacks of laptops that they used for assignments at different agencies. On a blog popular among SSA staffers, the mood in the comments section turned dark, with some anonymous posters identifying where in the building the “incel DOGE boys” were located and saying that “they are just warming up … just think what will come next.”

    Dudek sensed the growing tension. He felt it, too. He’d been getting anonymous death threats mailed to his house. He decided to move the DOGE operatives to a more secluded area of the campus and assigned an armed security detail to protect them.

    During his first month as commissioner, Dudek ran his executive meetings in bombastic fashion, as if he were Trump on “The Apprentice.” And he sent out insulting full-staff emails pressuring career employees to retire. (Some 5,500 have left, with 1,500 more expected to follow.)

    Dudek says this behavior stemmed partly from being in over his head, amazed by who he was suddenly answering to. “When the president of the United States asks you to do stuff,” he said, “you get caught up.”

    But he also claims he was just performing a role. “Early on, I put on a persona of a yeller,” Dudek said. (Multiple longtime colleagues and friends noticed the change, they told ProPublica. As one put it, “There’s Lee, and then there’s Leland-performingly-Dudek.”)

    This, he hoped, would convince the White House and DOGE of his commitment, which could in turn give him credibility as he kept trying to push them toward the real issues at Social Security.

    But the Trump administration kept having other plans. Its demands usually came through Coulter, the DOGE lead with the Harvard and hedge fund background, who early on dropped by Dudek’s office unannounced multiple times a week, Dudek said.

    “I really think it would be helpful if you were to do this tomorrow,” Coulter would say to Dudek about eliminating an entire division of the SSA or cutting more staff, according to Dudek. To him, these suggestions felt like orders. If he responded, “I don’t know, let me think about it,” Coulter would call a few hours later on the encrypted-messaging app Signal to ask, “You really aren’t catching on, are you?” and “Do you know how many times I’ve defended you?”

    “I was supposed to get the message — and it would be ‘my own decision,’ so I’d be stuck with it,” Dudek said. “He can say he never told me to do anything.” (Coulter, who has been working for DOGE at NASA in recent months, did not respond to a request for comment.)

    One of Coulter’s suggestions involved the SSA’s Office of Transformation, which had been doing the seemingly DOGE-like work of developing an online application to replace many of the agency’s paper-based forms and in-person interviews. The office had been working with elderly, low-income and disabled people to see what most confused them about SSA processes and what would most help them if these were redesigned.

    But instead of facilitating this effort at greater efficiency, Coulter told Dudek to close the office, according to Dudek, claiming it was wasteful. Agency staff joked that DOGE shut it down because its name included a word that began with “trans.”

    Dudek and his colleagues sometimes attempted to co-opt DOGE’s obsessions in the hope that they could address a genuine problem at the agency. This strategy was not successful.

    Such was the case with the issue of phone fraud. Knowing that the DOGErs would perk up at the mention of anything fraud-related, Dudek and other officials made a point of explaining that they’d been working on an initiative to block bots that had been calling the agency. The bots would impersonate beneficiaries, using dates of birth and other information that can be found on the internet, to try to change the beneficiaries’ bank-routing information and steal their benefits.

    In 2024, Dudek had been on a team that spearheaded an effort to combat this type of fraud. The plans included running all phone-based requests for bank account changes against a Treasury Department database of suspicious accounts and analyzing such calls to verify whether they were being made from the vicinity of the address on file of the person purportedly calling.

    DOGE ignored the proposed solutions. Instead, the White House instructed Dudek to end all claims and direct-deposit transactions by phone. Beneficiaries would have to verify their own identities by using an often-confusing web portal or by traveling to a field office to do it in person. For millions of elderly or disabled people, these were daunting or impossible options.

    When this policy was rolled out at the end of March, beneficiaries panicked. Many flocked to field offices to preemptively provide proof of their identities even when they didn’t need to.

    Back at headquarters, in a weekly staff meeting, Dudek asked who could jump on the increasingly urgent task of making it easier to schedule field office appointments via the SSA website. “Well, Lee, you just fired that team,” one official answered, referring to the Office of Transformation. (Dudek said he asked this question on purpose to make sure DOGE heard the answer.)

    Over the course of six weeks under Dudek, the phone policy zigged and zagged a half dozen times — for example, the SSA adopted, then abandoned, a three-day waiting period to conduct an algorithmic fraud check on all calls — before finally ending up nearly where it began. Transactions could be carried out by phone again.

    Throughout this saga, Dudek was still getting calls from White House officials — most often from Katie Miller, DOGE’s spokesperson and the wife of Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s closest advisers. (Katie Miller went on to work for Musk before announcing plans to launch her own podcast. She did not respond to a request for comment.) Miller often called well into the evening, Dudek said, to chastise him about anything the press had reported that day that had caught the administration off guard.

    As Dudek restored the phone policy to its pre-Trump version, Miller got angrier. “You changed the president’s policy,” she said, according to Dudek.

    “I’m like, ‘No, I’m still with the president’s policy,’” Dudek told Miller. But, if Social Security officials could implement the anti-fraud measures that he and his team had previously been planning, he said, they could “achieve the same end.” In that case, Dudek said, “we will do so and ease the friction point on the public.”

    “How dare you,” Miller said.

    Increasingly dismayed, Dudek hatched a plan that seemed to embody his mix of good intentions, hubris and melodrama. He decided he would continue to play along with DOGE on the surface, in part so that Coulter and the other bigwigs would think he was still handling their business and thus spend less time at the agency. The younger DOGE team members, he said, were “easier to work with when their masters weren’t around.”

    But behind the scenes, he began to undermine DOGE however he could. Sometimes he did this by making intemperate statements that he knew would find their way into the press and draw attention to what DOGE was asking him to do. “Have you ever worked with someone who’s manic-depressive?” he said of the Trump administration’s leadership in one meeting.

    Other times Dudek himself was the leaker. As commissioner, he was often an anonymous source for articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times. “If it was stupid stuff from the DOGE team, a lot of times I would go out to the press and immediately tattletale on myself so that it would blow up the next day,” Dudek said, adding that he did this in part to help Social Security advocates understand and bring attention to the growing crisis at the agency.

    Rebecca Vallas, CEO of the nonprofit National Academy of Social Insurance, said she was in a one-on-one meeting with Dudek in March when he started getting calls from DOGE officials and the media. The calls were about his recent public comments claiming he might have to shut down the entire Social Security Administration if a federal judge continued to deny DOGE access to sensitive Social Security data. “He just let me sit there with the volume up high,” Vallas said.

    On one of the calls, she said, someone told Dudek, “Elon loved that, but now it’s time to walk it back.” Afterward, Dudek told her, “I don’t know how we get out of this without hurting huge numbers of people. … I’m just trying to give advocates some ammunition.”

    Dudek’s strategy was easier to pull off without DOGE catching on if it came off as the blundering of an amateur, he told ProPublica. In the most striking example, DOGE instructed Dudek to cancel two contracts that the SSA had with the state of Maine, according to Dudek and other SSA officials. The contracts, which all 50 states have long had versions of, allowed Maine to automatically report births and deaths to Social Security. Canceling them would impede government efficiency: Births and deaths in the state would take weeks or months longer to enter the federal system. That would likely cause benefits to continue to be sent to thousands of Mainers after they’ve died, exactly the kind of thing that Trump and Musk had been railing against.

    It seemed clear to Dudek that he was being told to do this only because Trump was publicly feuding with Maine’s governor about transgender athletes. (The White House declined to comment on this episode.) So he decided to “write the hell out of” an email directing that the contracts be canceled. He did so in a way he thought would still earn him points with Trump and DOGE but that would, simultaneously, be so inflammatory that it would create a major storyline for reporters, advocates and Congress.

    “Please cancel the contracts,” Dudek’s email read. “While our improper payments will go up, and fraudsters may compromise identities, no money will go from the public trust to a petulant child.” That last phrase referred to Maine’s governor, Janet Mills, the one Trump had been fighting with. (“Do I care about Janet Mills? No,” Dudek told ProPublica.)

    As Dudek had hoped, the press attention he generated compelled him to do what he already wanted to do: reinstate the contracts. In a written apology, he explained that he was only belatedly realizing the potential harm of what he (alone) had done. “I screwed up,” he told reporters. “I’m new at this job.”

    Once again, Miller called Dudek and excoriated him. “What the hell is going on?” she said.

    “This place leaks like a sieve,” he answered. “What can I tell you?”

    Looking back on his tenure, Dudek maintains that his three months working alongside DOGE were not as harmful as they could have been, especially compared with what happened this spring at other federal agencies, some of which were essentially vaporized. Social Security checks, he points out, are still going out the door.

    Still, the SSA is reduced in his wake, with thousands fewer staff members to process claims and improve systems. These departed employees were disproportionately experienced and knowledgeable; they were the ones able to get other jobs or to retire with a pension. They took a lot of know-how with them.

    And the emotional harm that DOGE caused to older people and to people with disabilities — worsened by Dudek’s confusing actions — lingers. Many of these people have had money taken out of their paychecks their entire careers to pay for something more than just retirement benefits: security. It’s a feeling that may now be lost to them forever.

    Indeed, DOGE and Dudek caused so much consternation about the stability of the system that hundreds of thousands of people have filed early for retirement in recent months, even though doing so is not financially wise in the long term. The SSA must now pay out more in benefits than expected, contrary to DOGE’s cost-saving mission.

    Dudek’s sister back in Saginaw, Ana Dudek, relies on Social Security disability benefits. “I would talk to my brother when he was commissioner and be like, dude, the decisions you’re making are causing people to feel terror,” she said. “Terror is an apt descriptor.”

    Dudek acknowledges much of this. “I’m not a cold, callous son of a bitch, I really do get it,” he said. “I’ll forever be associated with the pain of DOGE. … But so much went on in such a short amount of time. I tried to make the best decisions I could given the circumstances.”

    Since being dismissed from the agency in June, Dudek has been struggling to find another job. “My name is mud,” he said. “It is as if I no longer exist.”

    As a former SSA colleague put it, Dudek’s story is “the story of a disposable pawn, and there’s lots of those under Trump. They just used him, and then they disposed of him.”

    The White House, presented with extensive questions for this article, sent a one-paragraph statement disparaging ProPublica and Dudek. ProPublica’s story, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “is largely based around the comments of a disgruntled former employee who openly admitted to leaking to the media, manipulating his colleagues, and repeatedly telling lies from his official position. On his last day as Acting Commissioner, Leland Dudek showered praise upon President Trump in an op-ed and touted the ‘real results’ of the Social Security Administration, but now that he’s bitter about being out of the top job — he’s singing a different tune.”

    Dudek said the administration asked him to write the op-ed and then vetted it. Referring to the litany of extravagant praise that cabinet secretaries lavished on Trump recently, he said, “you saw the cabinet meeting.”

    Bisignano, the Social Security commissioner, comes to the role with a very different professional background than Dudek (though, like Dudek, he has working-class roots, in his case in Brooklyn). Until this job, Bisignano, 66, spent his career in the private sector. He was a top executive in operations and technology at massive banks like Citigroup and JPMorganChase and went on to become CEO of the payment processor Fiserv.

    Yet, like DOGE, he appears to have embraced the appearance of efficiency rather than efficiency itself. He has repeatedly told staff that Social Security should be run more like Amazon, with AI handling more customer interactions. But disability claims are more complicated than ordering toothpaste, according to SSA officials and experts, and Social Security’s customer base is older and more likely to have an intellectual disability than the average Amazon Prime member.

    Bisignano has also fixated on how much time it takes to reach an agent on the SSA’s 800 number. In a July press release, he claimed that the average was down to six minutes, an 80% reduction from 2024. He achieved this in part by reassigning 1,000 field office employees to phone duty. That means initial calls are getting answered faster, but there are significantly fewer staff members available to handle complex, in-person cases. And “reaching an agent” turns out to mean speaking to a human being — or an AI bot. Internal SSA statistics obtained by ProPublica reveal that Bisignano’s estimate treats cases in which beneficiaries interact with a chatbot and opt for a callback as “zero-minute” waits, skewing the average. If you actually stay on the line, USA Today has found, it often takes over an hour to reach a live representative.

    In its statement, the SSA reiterated that call wait times have dramatically improved and that “using technology on our national 800 number has enabled 90 percent of calls handled to be served via automated self-service options or convenient callbacks.”

    Even the latest phone fraud policy feels like a rerun from DOGE’s earlier season. In late July, Bisignano’s team quietly posted a document to the Office of Management and Budget website stating that 3.4 million more people would have to go into field offices to verify their identities instead of being able to do so by phone, starting Aug. 18. Days later, the SSA announced that this was actually optional.

    The DOGE era may officially be over at the agency, but the approach, it seems, is the same. As one SSA official put it, Bisignano is “doing all the same fundamentally inefficient things, more efficiently.”

    [ad_2]

    Eli Hager, ProPublica

    Source link

  • 9 Smart Habits To Start With Your Social Security Check Now

    [ad_1]

    Whether your Social Security benefits are a supplement to other retirement income or the bulk of what you live on, maximizing that income with smart habits is important to a secure retirement.

    Be Aware: 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks

    Read Next: 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money

    While many things are out of a retiree’s control, such as inflation or government policies, according to CFP Christopher Stroup, owner of Silicon Beach Financial, adopting these nine habits can make it easier to stay ahead.

    When your Social Security check hits at the first of the month, Stroup urged, “create a clear picture of your essential expenses like housing, healthcare, food and utilities to ensure these are covered before anything else.”

    He recommended using a zero-based budget, in which you “give every dollar a job.” Then, prioritize essential costs and track spending regularly to spot problem areas early.

    Look for opportunities to negotiate bills, reduce nonessential spending and take advantage of senior discounts. Small adjustments in multiple areas can make your benefits go further.

    Find Out: Need To Cut Expenses While on Social Security? Here’s the First Thing To Get Rid Of

    Another simple approach is to divide your Social Security check into categories, Stroup said. “Focus on covering necessities first, then earmark even a small amount each month for savings or an emergency fund.”

    Setting aside as little as $25 to $50 monthly creates a financial buffer without disrupting your day-to-day needs, he said.

    If you’re looking to free up cash flow, Stroup suggested reviewing recurring expenses each year. “Cancel services you no longer use, shop for more competitive insurance rates and call utility providers to ask about senior discounts or promotional pricing.”

    These small, proactive steps can create significant breathing room in a fixed-income budget.

    When the Social Security check arrives, always focus on essential living costs first, then direct any remaining funds toward high-interest debt.

    “If payments feel overwhelming, consider strategies like refinancing, consolidating balances or negotiating lower rates,” he said.

    Most important, avoid adding new debt whenever possible, especially from credit cards, to keep your Social Security income working toward long-term stability.

    Automation can simplify financial management and reduce stress, and it’s easier than ever to set up automatic payments for essentials like housing, insurance and utilities.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maddow Blog | Whistleblower accuses DOGE team of endangering critical Social Security data

    [ad_1]

    Within weeks of Donald Trump’s second inaugural, members of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency team showed up at the Social Security Administration and started demanding access to files. The efforts were not well received: Michelle King, in her capacity as the acting Social Security commissioner, resigned after she refused a DOGE request to access sensitive government records at the agency.

    The underlying concern did not go away. The New York Times reported:

    Members of the Department of Government Efficiency uploaded a copy of a crucial Social Security database in June to a vulnerable cloud server, putting the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans at risk of being leaked or hacked, according to a whistle-blower complaint filed by the Social Security Administration’s chief data officer. The database contains records of all Social Security numbers issued by the federal government.

    The Times’ report added that the database in question “includes individuals’ full names, addresses and birth dates, among other details that could be used to steal their identities, making it one of the nation’s most sensitive repositories of personal information.”

    It’s an open question as to why, exactly, DOGE would even want to upload such a database. (The controversial operation is ostensibly searching for fraud within the Social Security system, though its previous claims on the matter have fallen apart under scrutiny.)

    The whistleblower in this case is Charles Borges, the Social Security Administration’s chief data officer, who alleges that DOGE members copied the highly sensitive data without any kind of “independent security monitoring,” which in turn created “enormous vulnerabilities.”

    Borges didn’t say that the database had been breached, but his complaint added that there was no oversight to assess how and why DOGE was using the data. The Times’ report added:

    ‘Should bad actors gain access to this cloud environment, Americans may be susceptible to widespread identity theft, may lose vital health care and food benefits, and the government may be responsible for reissuing every American a new Social Security number at great cost,’ Mr. Borges’s complaint said. He alleged that DOGE did not involve him in discussions about the project, despite his role as chief data officer, leaving him to piece together evidence of what had happened after the fact.

    A spokesperson for the department said in a written statement, “Commissioner [Frank] Bisignano and the Social Security Administration take all whistleblower complaints seriously. SSA stores all personal data in secure environments that have robust safeguards in place to protect vital information.

    “The data referenced in the complaint is stored in a long-standing environment used by SSA and walled off from the internet. High-level career SSA officials have administrative access to this system with oversight by SSA’s Information Security team. We are not aware of any compromise to this environment and remain dedicated to protecting sensitive personal data.”

    In recent months, a variety of federal whistleblowers have come forward, and for the most part, the congressional Republican majority has ignored them — even when confirming Bisignano to lead the Social Security Administration. Whether GOP lawmakers express similar indifference to Borges remains to be seen. Watch this space.

    This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The foreign worker ‘loophole’ that gives corporations a generous tax break

    [ad_1]

    As debate heats up online around immigrant labor and the tech industry’s use of the H-1B foreign worker visa, a little-known process that allows student visa holders to transition into the workforce is also being viewed by some as a way for employers to hire cheaper labor.

    In this instance, it comes down to taxes and a legal loophole that allows companies taking on STEM workers under a program known as Optional Practical Training (OPT) to avoid paying in to federal programs like Medicare and Social Security, or at least allows those companies to pay less in payroll taxes than they would for U.S. citizens or legal residents.

    Like many other tensions around the current immigration system, which has remained largely unchanged for decades, this gray area has left the federal government open to legal challenges amid ever-growing frustrations around Big Tech and its use of foreign labor.

    In the OPT program, “there’s no wage obligation in the way that there is in H-1B where we’re very tied to an obligated wage,” Anne Walsh, a partner at the San Francisco-based law firm Corporate Immigration Partners, told Newsweek. “That said, they must be compensated and experience the working conditions that are comparable to other similarly situated U.S. employees.”

    How Popular Is STEM-OPT?

    The OPT program allows companies to take on student visa holders for a limited term, either during their studies or after their graduation, while their F-1 visa is still valid.

    In fiscal year 2024, U.S. companies employed 109,661 people on OPT. Amazon far outpaced other employers, with 10,167 OPT workers on its payroll, followed by the University of California system with 2,916. Google took on 2,454.

    The program has expanded since its creation in 1992, with a lobbying effort in the 2000s leading U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) to raise the cap on participants and extend the length of time allowed.

    With over 200 companies making use of the OPT program, immigration critics have warned that is just another way they see American workers being pushed aside for cheaper labor.

    “The OPT program is one of the most widely-used guest worker programs despite never being approved by Congress,” Jeremy Beck, co-president of immigration think-tank NumbersUSA, told Newsweek. “Business lobbyists pitched the idea of using OPT to get around the H-1B cap to the Bush Administration, which complied. The Obama and Biden Administrations expanded the program.”

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told Newsweek that it regulates STEM-OPT through a 2016 final rule, which affirmed that student visa holders – who primarily use this program – were not required to pay into Social Security, Medicare or federal unemployment because of their status.

    The rule granted employers the ability to save around 7.5 percent compared to the taxes and benefits they would pay for a U.S. resident or citizen worker. Another estimate, reported by Bloomberg in 2021, put the savings closer to 15 percent. Multiplied out, that potentially equals hundreds of millions of dollars staying on corporate balance sheets that would otherwise be paid into the federal tax pool under FICA.

    Debate Over American Worker Displacement

    In 2020, NAFSA, a non-profit professional organization focused on international education, published a report that said the set up left foreign students without the same benefits and certainties as other employees. It also alleged that the government was not doing enough to address deficiencies in the system itself.

    Five years later, those concerns have only grown.

    “Employers who hire OPT workers instead of Americans don’t have to pay payroll taxes, essentially giving them a discount for not hiring American workers,” Beck said. “OPT is one of many guestworker programs that displace qualified Americans in favor of exploitable foreign workers.”

    ICE has made it clear that DHS does not have the power to change tax rules and laws – that remains the purview of Congress and the IRS. The agency affirmed in its 2016 final rule that it could only administer the program with the rules as they were, and are.

    Newsweek reached out to the IRS for comment but did not hear back ahead of publication.

    Walsh said that, despite the criticisms of the program, she believed the employers she works with on a regular basis were using STEM-OPT as something of a last resort.

    “The obligations on the employer are definitely not as easy as hiring a qualified and willing U.S. worker,” she said. “They’ve got these obligations to fill out forms, to ensure proper supervision, to submit the required reporting at 12 months, and ensure that there’s no material changes that they have to report.”

    The idea that employers would be motivated by tax breaks or tax loopholes in hiring is “specious, politically motivated, and without evidence,” said Dr. Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA.

    “The real issue is that U.S. innovation requires expertise, especially in STEM fields, and international talent plays a vital role in meeting that need for expertise,” Aw said.

    Will Anything Change?

    University students walk past the Natural Sciences and Mathematics build on the campus of Cal State University Dominguez Hills, Carson, USA. Image for illustration purposes only.

    Getty Images

    That sits in contrast with the frustration being voiced, primarily on social media, that American workers – specifically highly educated college graduates – are being overlooked for roles they are qualified for while some of the best-paying jobs in the country go to workers on guest visas.

    In March, Arizona Republican Representative Paul Gosar reintroduced legislation aimed at tackling the OPT pipeline. He said his Fairness for High-Skilled Americans Act, first filed in President Donald Trump‘s first term, would terminate the program.

    “The OPT program completely undercuts American workers, particularly higher-skilled workers and recent college graduates, by giving employers a tax incentive to hire inexpensive, foreign labor under the guise of student training,” Gosar said in a March 25 press release, in which he called employers using the program “greedy”.

    Getting Congress to pass such reform like this appears unlikely, with many other immigration bills dying in committee despite calls from both Republicans and Democrats for change.

    Beck told Newsweek that NumbersUSA was making Gosar’s bill a priority, to ensure the end of the OPT program.

    For Walsh’s clients, they want something different: a clearer pathway for legal status for the foreign students they take on.

    “The frustration around having little to no option on the completion of STEM-OPT continues to get louder and louder,” Walsh said. “They want this talent, they don’t want them because they’re foreign workers, they want them because they’re positively contributing to growing their U.S. businesses and enabling the companies to hire more U.S. workers through their talents. So that continues to be a frustration that just gets louder and louder.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security benefits could be cut in as soon as 7 years. Congress must act. | Our view

    [ad_1]

    The 90th anniversary of Social Security came and went Thursday, August 14, as did programs acknowledging and celebrating it.

    At a Columbus town hall on the program, U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty reminded supporters and other seniors that President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans promised not to cut Social Security the same way they promised not to cut Medicaid, but did just that..

    “People are concerned, people are frustrated, people are scared and we’re talking about taking away, to quote what many of the participants said today, hard-earned money that they have worked for,” Beatty said.

    She’s right. People are concerned, frustrated and scared—and rightly so. That said, the problems with Social Security go beyond the fear of what Trump and GOP lawmakers may or may not do.

    The reality is Democrats and Republicans have failed Social Security, and benefits Americans receive could be dramatically slashed in as little as 7 years if lawmakers don’t act.

    Elected officials from both parties have an obligation to fix Social Security. Yet despite having had both the opportunity and the power, neither side has done so.

    The biggest countdown

    In May, AARP started counting down to the monumental day when Social Security, a benefit for retirees and those who can not work due to disabilities, was launched.

    A man holds back the hands of time on a large clock that stands in front of a large Social Security card. The image conveys the issues of the solvency of the social security system or a person’s invetibile march toward their eligiblity for social security.

    There is another countdown that should deeply concern Americans— our politicians in Congress, who can right the ship in particular.

    Since 2010, Social Security has distributed more money than it receives in taxes.

    If Republicans and Democrats in the Capitol continue to fail all Americans by punting the can down the road, the Social Security trust fund is projected to run dramatically short by 2034, a year earlier than the Social Security Administration reported in 2024.

    “At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 77% of total scheduled benefits,” the agency’s June report reads.

    In other words, Social Security benefits that seniors depend on will be cut by 23% within eight years.

    That projection is slightly better than the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s estimation that benefits will drop 24% within seven years.

    The think tank included the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed July 4.

    Under the committee’s conclusions, a dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033 would see their annual benefits cut $18,100.

    People are frustrated, people are scared

    Younger Americans have long been skeptical about the future of Social Security. Now, those concerns are growing among older Americans.

    According to a  July 22 AARP survey, 96% of Americans consider Social Security important, but only 36% are confident in the future of the retirement trust fund.

    Of that, 25% of those ages 18 to 49 voiced confidence in the program’s future. That compares with 48% of those 50 and older.

    Sixty-six percent of retirees said they relied substantially on Social Security. Another 21% indicated they rely on it somewhat.

    A separate July survey from Alliance for Lifetime Income, found that 58% of Americans aged 45 to 75 fear Social Security will be cut due to the Trump administration’s recent actions.

    Fifty-two percent in that age range expressed less confidence in Social Security than they had five years ago.

    The coming crisis can be averted

    It will not be easy to shore up Social Security, but doing so is a necessity and should be a congressional priority to avoid the impact on 68 million recipients, the vast majority whom are retired workers or their dependents.

    The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has offered a list of suggestions for policymakers that includes slowing the growth of benefits over time, and raising the payroll tax rate or increasing the amount of earnings subject to the tax.

    Other experts have suggested that the retirement age should be gradually increased.

    A solution to that heads off the crisis will not be easy to reach, but the undertaking is worth it.

    Social Security has been there for Americans for nine decades — with Americans’ first receiving benefit checks from their taxes in 1937.

    If our elected representatives make the decisive acts required of them, it will be there for years to come.

    This editorial was written by Dispatch Opinion and Community Engagement Editor Amelia Robinson on behalf of the editorial board of The Columbus DispatchEditorials are fact-based assessments of issues of importance to the communities we serve. These are not the opinions of our reporting staff members, who strive for neutrality in their reporting.

    This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Social Security may run out of money. Congress must save it | Our view

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The most popular baby names for 2024 revealed, does your child’s name make the list?

    [ad_1]

    Liam and Olivia dominate. Still.

    The two names have, for a sixth year together, topped the list of names for babies born in the U.S. in 2024.

    The Social Security Administration annually tracks the names given to girls and boys in each state, with names dating back to 1880. In time for Mother’s Day, the agency on Friday released the most popular names from applications for Social Security cards.

    Liam has reigned for eight years in a row for boys, while Olivia has topped the girls’ list for six. Also, for the sixth consecutive year, Emma took the second slot for girls, and Noah for boys.

    The girls’ name Luna slipped out of the Top 10 and was replaced by Sofia, which enters at number 10 for the first time.

    Top 10 Male Baby Names of 2024

    1. Liam
    2. Noah
    3. Oliver
    4. Theodore
    5. James
    6. Henry
    7. Mateo
    8. Elijah
    9. Lucas
    10. William

    Top 10 Female Baby Names of 2024

    1. Olivia
    2. Emma
    3. Amelia
    4. Charlotte
    5. Mia
    6. Sophia
    7. Isabella
    8. Evelyn
    9. Ava
    10. Sofia

    Sophie Kihm, editor-in-chief of nameberry, a baby naming website, said the latest data showcases how American parents are increasingly choosing names that have cross-cultural appeal. Kihm’s first name shows up in two variations on the annual list.

    “A trend we’re tracking is that Americans are more likely to choose heritage choices,” Kihm said, including names that work “no matter where you are in the world.”

    ”More families in the U.S. come from mixed cultural backgrounds and I hear parents commonly request that they want their child to travel and have a relatively easy to understand name.”

    The Social Security Administration’s latest data show that 3.61 million babies were born in the U.S. in 2024. That’s a slight increase from last year’s 3.59 million babies, representing an overall increase in the American birthrate.

    Social media stars and popular television shows are having some impact on the rising popularity of certain names, Social Security says.

    Among those rising in popularity for girls: Ailany, a Hawaiian name that means “chief,” topped the list. The boys’ name Truce, an Old English name meaning “peace,” rose 11,118 spots from last year’s position to rank 991.

    The complete, searchable list of baby names is on the Social Security website.

    [ad_2]

    Fatima Hussein | The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Misleading claims fly in competitive Senate campaigns

    Misleading claims fly in competitive Senate campaigns

    [ad_1]

    Candidates have been waging high-stakes, high-dollar campaigns in Senate races across the country this year, as Senate control rests on a few swing states.

    Democrats, who now control the Senate with 51 seats, are playing defense, looking to protect incumbents in competitive races and stop Republicans from gaining open seats in Michigan and Arizona. 

    Republicans need a net gain of two seats to gain control of the chamber, or one if the incoming vice president is a Republican.

    Claims about Medicare and Social Security, abortion rights and voting rights have been common themes PolitiFact has checked as we’ve identified misleading campaign claims and misinformation.

    We rounded up the most common themes we’ve checked from more than 50 claims in races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Theme No. 1: Both parties have dire, misleading warnings for Social Security and Medicare.

    Millions of retired Americans rely on Social Security payments and Medicare health coverage. Older Americans reliably have a higher voting turnout than other age groups, so concerns about these programs often play highly in national campaigns. 

    In campaign attacks, Democratic candidates have claimed their opponents want to cut Social Security and Medicare or raise the retirement age for benefits in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

    In Michigan, the United Auto Workers labor union ran an ad saying Republican candidate Mike Rogers “wants to cut Medicare and Social Security.” In Nevada, incumbent Sen. Jackie Rosen said Republican opponent Sam Brown “publicly supported forcing massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”

    Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate vying for the open Michigan U.S. Senate seat, answers questions from the Oct. 14, 2024, media after he debated U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly. (AP)

    Republicans have in the past floated plans to raise the age for retirement benefits under Medicare or Social Security or change the benefit structures in some way. But these Republicans generally aren’t calling to cut the programs now; most candidates have said this year they will not support cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits. 

    Republicans in Montana and Arizona have also wrongly accused their Democratic opponents of planning to cut Social Security, pointing to statements from more than a decade ago that were taken out of context. 

    The Montana claim pointed to 2011 statements from Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who said he supported a commission that recommended cutting federal spending; some moves would have trimmed Social Security payments. Tester said he did not support all of the commission’s recommendations and opposed the Social Security proposals. In Arizona Republican candidate Kari Lake’s case, the evidence for her claim had nothing to do with U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, her Democratic opponent.

    Social Security and Medicare both face funding shortfalls; major trust funds behind both programs are expected to be depleted in a little more than a decade, according to recent reports. However, strategies to address this funding have proven politically dangerous for both parties.

    Theme No. 2: Democrats exaggerate Republicans’ stances on abortion bans, exceptions

    With about 63% of Americans believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases, Democrats are leaning on popular support for abortion rights in their campaign messages. 

    Democrats have argued that Republicans plan to ban abortion nationally if they take power, often saying their opponents oppose rape and incest exceptions to abortion restrictions.

    The attacks have come from Democratic candidates in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Nevada and Florida

    In Nevada, Rosen said Brown said “abortion should be banned without any exceptions for rape or incest.” In Pennsylvania, a Democratic political action committee said Republican Dave McCormick is “fully against abortion.” 

    Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., takes questions from reporters after a debate with Republican senatorial candidate Sam Brown, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024, in Las Vegas. (AP)

    These attacks often point to a candidate’s long history of supporting abortion restrictions, including some cases in which candidates hadn’t supported rape and incest exceptions. But during this election, Republicans are mostly not arguing for a national abortion ban; all have said they support exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the pregnant woman’s life. 

    In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans Rogers and McCormick have both said they would vote no on a national abortion ban. They’ve deferred to their states’ laws, which both allow abortions until around 24 weeks, the point of fetal viability, with exceptions later if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. 

    Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno has said he supports national legislation to ban abortion in most cases at 15 weeks, with exceptions after that for rape, incest and to save the pregnant woman’s life. When he ran for the party’s Senate nomination in 2022, Moreno said he did not support any exceptions to abortion bans, but he has since changed that position. 

    Theme No. 3: Republicans exaggerate Democrats’ support for abortion “until the moment of birth.”

    Republicans have tried to paint Democrats as extreme on abortion during this campaign cycle. Candidates have said their opponents support abortion until the moment of birth or they do not support any limits on abortion. 

    Republican Tim Sheehy in Montana said Tester supports “elective abortions up to and including the moment of birth.” In Nevada, Republican Sam Brown said a proposed state constitutional amendment would put “no limit” on abortion access.

    Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy speaks to supporters Sept. 4, 2024, in Billings, Mont. (AP)

    Earlier this year, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said Senate Democrats voted “to support unlimited abortions up to the moment of birth.” We rated these claims False, and they ignore the limits imposed by the Senate legislation that Democrats support. 

    Senate Democrats voted in May 2022 for the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would have imposed a national right to an abortion until fetal viability mirroring the rights in place under Roe v. Wade. The bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass in the Senate.

    The bill would have allowed abortions after fetal viability, if the pregnancy risked the pregnant woman’s life or health. 

    The bill does not allow abortion for any reason late in pregnancy and up to the moment of birth, experts said. Instead, it allows for medical judgment by a health care provider in rare instances in which a pregnancy risks the pregnant woman’s health. 

    “This is not abortion on demand until the moment of birth,” Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit, and director of the nonprofit’s Women’s Health Policy Program, told us in a previous fact-check. “Even if politicians and anti-abortion activists make this claim, there are no clinicians that provide ‘abortions’ moments before birth.” 

    In Nevada, Brown’s “no limit” argument made the same error, ignoring the amendment’s provision that abortion can be restricted after fetal viability unless a woman’s health or life is at risk. The proposed amendment is worded to provide similar protections as those already in state law, but it enshrines them in the state constitution, making them harder to overturn. Nevada voters will vote on the amendment Nov. 5. 

    Theme No. 4: Republicans misrepresented Democrats’ votes on the SAVE Act.

    In an election rife with claims about immigration and election security, some Republicans have pushed the incorrect claim that Democrats recently voted to allow immigrants in the country illegally to vote in federal elections. 

    The claim gives a misleading picture of a bill that most House Democrats voted against earlier this year. It is illegal under federal law for immigrants in the country illegally to vote, and Democrats in Congress have not recommended or supported measures to change that. 

    In July, the majority House Republicans passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, mostly along party lines with Republicans in the majority. The bill would have required people to show proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote in federal elections. 

    But Republicans, including Lake in Arizona and Rogers in Michigan, have argued their opponents’ votes against that bill was a vote to “let illegals vote in U.S. elections,” as Rogers falsely put it. 

    Democrats’ opposition to the bill was not a vote to open voter registration up to noncitizens, though, because federal and state laws already ban noncitizen voting. Whether the bill passed or failed, that prohibition would not have changed. 

    Democrats said the bill impeded access to voting for eligible citizens who may lack easy access to proof of citizenship. 

    Theme No. 5: Republican claims about gender-affirming care and women’s sports

    Republicans in the race’s final weeks have zeroed in on transgender-focused policies. 

    Republicans in Ohio, Montana and Wisconsin ran ads accusing Democratic candidates of supporting transgender women competing in women’s sports or gender-affirming care for minors. 

    In Ohio, Republicans said Bincumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown voted to “allow transgender biological men to compete in girls’ sports” and “supported allowing puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries for minor children.” 

    Brown voted against an amendment that would have stripped funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls and women to compete in sports matching their gender identities. The amendment did not directly dictate athletic eligibility, which states and governing sports bodies usually decide. 

    U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, speaks at a campaign rally, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Cincinnati. (AP)

    In another ad, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC working to build a Republican Senate majority, said Brown supported allowing puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgery for minors. Brown has generally supported transgender rights. 

    Although Brown expressed broad support for preventing government restrictions on gender affirming care for minors, he did not specifically address support for puberty blockers and surgery. 

    In Wisconsin, Republican Eric Hovde said his Democratic opponent, incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, gave taxpayer money to a “transgender-affirming clinic … that does it without even telling parents.” 

    The statement referred to a Wisconsin nonprofit that serves runaway and homeless youth. Although Hovde did not specify what he meant by “does it,” the wider conversation touched on puberty blockers and surgeries for transgender youth.

    The nonprofit, Briarpatch Youth Services, offers a support group for LGBTQ+ teens, but it does not provide medical interventions, with or without parents’ consent. Guidelines from American Academy of Pediatrics say parental consent is required for a person younger than 18 to receive puberty blockers, hormones or gender-affirming surgeries. Hovde’s claim is False.

    RELATED: Read our coverage of 2024 tossup Senate races

    RELATED: Republicans use sleight of hand to blame Inflation Reduction Act for boosting prices

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Some Social Security recipients will get an extra check in November. Here’s what to know

    Some Social Security recipients will get an extra check in November. Here’s what to know

    [ad_1]

    Some recipients of Social Security disability and retirement benefits will receive an extra payment in November, with the first coming this week.Related video above: Protect yourself from scams this shopping season People who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and have collected Social Security since before May 1997 will be paid on Friday. For those who receive both benefits, Social Security will be paid on Monday, Nov. 3.Adults and children are eligible for SSI if they have limited to no income or resources and have a disability and blindness, or are 65 and older. About 7.4 million people receive SSI benefits, according to the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA).SSI recipients will receive a second check next month, coming on Nov. 29. However, this is not an additional payment. That check will count toward December’s allotment.SSI payments typically occur on the first of every month but since Dec. 1 is on a Sunday, and the SSA does not make payments on weekends or federal holidays, the administration is pushing the payment up a couple of days.”We do this to avoid putting you at a financial disadvantage and make sure that you don’t have to wait beyond the first of the month to get your payment,” the SSA said in a blog post. “It does not mean that you are receiving a duplicate payment in the previous month, so you do not need to contact us to report the second payment.”

    Some recipients of Social Security disability and retirement benefits will receive an extra payment in November, with the first coming this week.

    Related video above: Protect yourself from scams this shopping season

    People who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and have collected Social Security since before May 1997 will be paid on Friday. For those who receive both benefits, Social Security will be paid on Monday, Nov. 3.

    Adults and children are eligible for SSI if they have limited to no income or resources and have a disability and blindness, or are 65 and older. About 7.4 million people receive SSI benefits, according to the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA).

    SSI recipients will receive a second check next month, coming on Nov. 29. However, this is not an additional payment. That check will count toward December’s allotment.

    SSI payments typically occur on the first of every month but since Dec. 1 is on a Sunday, and the SSA does not make payments on weekends or federal holidays, the administration is pushing the payment up a couple of days.

    “We do this to avoid putting you at a financial disadvantage and make sure that you don’t have to wait beyond the first of the month to get your payment,” the SSA said in a blog post. “It does not mean that you are receiving a duplicate payment in the previous month, so you do not need to contact us to report the second payment.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Baldwin claim that Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%” is misleading

    Baldwin claim that Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%” is misleading

    [ad_1]

    Ah, Social Security. The third rail of politics. Its coffers are running low, but a large majority of Americans like it, and thus, politicians who talk about cutting it are wandering into risky territory. 

    Perhaps that’s why U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, has attacked Republican businessman Eric Hovde — who’s running to unseat her in November — over his statements about it, both old and new. 

    As Election Day nears and their race heats up, Baldwin’s campaign on Oct. 7, 2024 released an ad claiming Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%.” The next day, speaking at a luncheon co-sponsored by the Milwaukee Press Club and Rotary Club of Milwaukee, Hovde hit back, saying he has “never” said he wants to cut Social Security benefits and that he does not “want to take older people’s Social Security away.” 

    So, did Hovde really just propose cutting Social Security by 28%? 

    PolitiFact Wisconsin dug in, and found that while the claim from Baldwin’s campaign stretches the facts, Hovde’s position on what he wants to do with it isn’t entirely clear, either. 

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Let’s take a look. 

    Baldwin’s math  

    We’ll get the easy part out of the way first: Hovde didn’t literally propose cutting Social Security 28%. So how did Baldwin’s team come up with the figure? 

    When asked for evidence to back up the claim, campaign spokesperson Andrew Mamo pointed primarily to an Oct. 3, 2024 WUWM interview in which Hovde says he’d pull “all government programs” back to what was spent on them in 2019. 

    The spokesperson cited a March 23, 2023 analysis from the libertarian Cato Institute that examined Congressional Budget Office data, which showed spending on Social Security retirement benefits increased from $893 billion in 2019 to nearly $1.2 trillion in 2023. 

    Using a Congressional Budget Office projection that baseline spending will increase on average 4.8% annually over the next decade, Baldwin’s campaign did the math to estimate Social Security retirement spending will increase to $1.24 trillion this year — meaning a return to $893 billion, or what was spent in 2019, would be a 28% cut. 

    Hovde’s comments 

    Now, let’s look at what Hovde has said on the matter. 

    The Baldwin ad features an April 24, 2012 appearance by Hovde, then in his first run for U.S. Senate, at the Milwaukee Press Club, where he was asked if he favors “either raising the retirement age and/or cutting benefits for those who are considered wealthy.” Hovde answered, “I favor both.” 

    In a July 19, 2012 interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board, Hovde laid out his position during that race: For people 50 or older, their Social Security benefits would stay the same. People under 50 would add two years to their retirement age, people under 40 would add two more, and so on. And, he said, “somebody like me may not receive much Social Security payment,” referring to the idea of cutting benefits for wealthier individuals. 

    That was in 2012 — a dozen years ago. What about during his current campaign? 

    Hovde has several times suggested pulling back federal spending to 2019 levels, responding to a question at the Oct. 8, 2024 luncheon of whether “across the board, all government would scaled back,” by saying, “All you have to do is go to the budget that was in 2019 and pull those levels right back again, pre-COVID levels.” 

    He’s resisted the implication that that means cutting Social Security benefits. 

    Hovde mentioned Baldwin’s ad at the Oct. 8, 2024 luncheon, saying he supports raising the retirement age for younger people because life expectancy has increased from when the Social Security system was first implemented. 

    “Instead, we’ve got an ad saying I want to take older people’s Social Security away. Of course I don’t want to take older people’s Social Security away,” he said. 

    He also put out a statement about the ad, writing, “I do not, and will not, touch the benefits of anyone who is currently receiving Social Security or is nearing retirement.” 

    “To keep Social Security solvent for future generations, we will have to make changes,” he writes later in the statement, “but let me emphasize again, these changes would only apply to younger generations, specifically those under 40.” 

    So here’s the rub: Hovde has said he’d like to pull government spending back to 2019 levels, which would presumably have an effect on Social Security — at the least, on the agency that manages it. But he’s also stated multiple times that he does not want to cut current Social Security benefits — which chips away at the accuracy of the claim in the Baldwin ad. 

    Hovde campaign spokesperson Zachary Bannon did not respond to an email seeking to clarify whether returning federal spending to 2019 levels would include Social Security benefit spending. 

    Our ruling 

    The Baldwin ad claimed that Hovde “just proposed cutting Social Security by 28%.” 

    While Hovde has called more than once to pull government spending back to 2019 levels, which could have implications on Social Security funding in general, he has not specifically proposed cutting retirement benefits by that amount. 

    In this campaign, in fact, he’s said he would not seek to cut Social Security retirement benefits, pushing instead to raise the retirement age for younger people. 

    Our definition of Mostly False is a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. 

    That fits here. 

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nearly Half of Americans Are Absolutely Wrong About This All-Important Social Security Rule

    Nearly Half of Americans Are Absolutely Wrong About This All-Important Social Security Rule

    [ad_1]

    Social Security is the foundation for many Americans’ retirement plans. However, not everyone knows all of the details of how the government program works. There are a few foundational rules everyone should know, but many Americans’ knowledge falls short for even the most basic and important rules governing the program.

    If you don’t know the basics of how Social Security works, making an informed decision about when to claim your retirement benefits becomes impossible. Applying for benefits too early (or too late) can have serious long-term ramifications on your retirement goals. Unfortunately, almost half of Americans maintain an incorrect belief about how claiming benefits early will impact their monthly benefit, according to a recent survey from Nationwide.

    A stack of Social Security cards.

    Image source: Getty Images.

    A costly mistaken belief

    In the survey, 48% of Americans incorrectly identified the following statement as true: “If I claim benefits early, my benefits will go up automatically when reaching full retirement age.”

    Most readers will reach full retirement age at 67 despite becoming eligible to claim Social Security benefits at age 62. But there’s no free lunch when it comes to these benefits. The truth is claiming your benefits before you reach full retirement age will permanently reduce your monthly benefit.

    The following table shows just how much less you can expect to receive relative to your full retirement age if you claim early.

    Claiming Age

    % of Full Benefit

    62

    70%

    63

    75%

    64

    80%

    65

    86.7%

    66

    93.3%

    67

    100%

    For Americans with a full retirement age of 67 (born in 1960 or later).
    Table source: Author. Data source: Social Security Administration.

    Why is this misunderstanding so prevalent?

    There’s a reason why many people may maintain the mistaken belief that you’ll see a bump in benefits upon reaching full retirement age. That’s because sometimes you actually do. But that’s only due to another commonly misunderstood rule: the Social Security earnings test.

    The Social Security earnings test says if you earn over a certain amount while collecting retirement benefits before your full retirement age, the Social Security Administration will withhold some of your monthly benefits. The amount withheld is factored back into your monthly benefit once you reach full retirement age. At that point, the earnings test no longer applies, and the SSA no longer withholds any of your benefit.

    In this context, the ultimate size of your check is primarily determined by the age at which you initially apply for Social Security. If you never exceed the earnings test threshold in a given year, you’ll never see a change in the amount you collect besides the annual COLA.

    Many Americans are unaware of how the Social Security earnings test works as well. Just 56% of survey respondents correctly answered a question about it in Nationwide’s survey.

    The earnings test is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. It’s important to make that distinction to avoid confusion when making a decision about when to claim benefits.

    It pays to delay

    All things being equal, it’s typically beneficial to wait to claim your benefits, possibly even beyond your full retirement age.

    If you opt to wait to claim your benefits, the Social Security Administration will increase your monthly benefit by 2/3 of a percentage point for each month you delay beyond full retirement age. Those delayed retirement credits max out at age 70, which means someone with a full retirement age of 67 can receive a 24% boost to their monthly checks.

    A 2019 study from United Income found the majority of seniors (57%) would be better off by waiting until age 70 to claim their retirement benefits. Just 8% would benefit from claiming before age 65.

    There are plenty of good reasons to claim early, though.

    For one, if the quality of your life with the supplemental income is significantly higher than without, then it probably makes sense to claim it when you need it. There are steps you can take later if your situation improves to mitigate the impact of claiming early.

    Another situation is when you have a reasonable expectation that you’ll pass away earlier than your peers. Social Security is designed to pay out roughly the same amount in lifetime benefits for someone living an average life expectancy regardless of when they claim. But if you suffer from a condition that curbs your life expectancy, it might make sense to claim your benefits earlier.

    No matter when you decide to claim, be sure you do it with a complete understanding of how your claiming age impacts your monthly benefit and whether or not you should actually expect your benefit to increase in the future.

    The $22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook

    If you’re like most Americans, you’re a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known “Social Security secrets” could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more… each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we’re all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

    View the “Social Security secrets” »

    The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

    Nearly Half of Americans Are Absolutely Wrong About This All-Important Social Security Rule was originally published by The Motley Fool

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security Payments to Increase By 2.5%: What It Means | Entrepreneur

    Social Security Payments to Increase By 2.5%: What It Means | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    The average Social Security payment is increasing by $48 per month next year.

    The Social Security Administration announced the 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for 2025 on Thursday, marking the smallest increase since 2021. The average COLA was 2.6% across the past decade, with the 2024 change at 3.2%, according to the administration.

    The close to 68 million Social Security beneficiaries and almost 7.5 million people receiving Supplemental Security Income payments will see their checks increase by 2.5% on January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively.

    The increase is based on inflation across July, August, and September. The consumer price index for July showed that inflation reached a three-year low at 2.9%. August’s inflation rate was even lower, at 2.5%, and September’s was 2.4%. Based on lower inflation numbers, the Federal Reserve cut the federal funds rate, which impacts everything from mortgage rates to credit card interest rates, for the first time in four years in September.

    Related: A Fed Rate Cut Finally Happened For the First Time in 4 Years. Here’s How the Decision Will Affect Your Wallet.

    How is the COLA calculated?

    The COLA takes the average inflation among urban wage earners and clerical workers from July to September and calculates the difference between this year’s average inflation and last year’s to arrive at a percentage.

    Is there another way to calculate?

    Some groups don’t approve of calculating the COLA as it is right now. The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) advocates basing the calculation on the CPI-E, which measures inflation for Americans ages 62 and up, instead of the CPI-W, which measures inflation among urban wage earners and clerical workers.

    “This year represents another lost opportunity to grant seniors the financial relief they deserve by changing the COLA calculation from the CPI-W to the CPI-E, which would better reflect seniors’ changing expenses,” TSCL executive director Shannon Benton stated in a press release.

    Is the COLA enough?

    TSCL estimated that the average Social Security check will increase by $48 from $1,920 to $1,968. That may not be enough, says AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins.

    “Even with this adjustment, we know many older Americans who rely on Social Security may find it hard to pay their bills,” Jenkins stated in a press release. “Social Security is the primary source of income for 40% of older Americans.”

    Related: Are You Actually on Track to Retire Well? A Financial Expert Reveals the Critical Milestones to Hit at Every Age — Plus 3 Common Oversights.

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • The Unfortunate Truth About Claiming Social Security at Age 67

    The Unfortunate Truth About Claiming Social Security at Age 67

    [ad_1]

    One of the most important decisions you’ll make in retirement planning is when to claim Social Security.

    Many retirees wait to claim benefits until reaching their full retirement age, which is when they’re entitled to receive their full insurance amount each month. It also comes with a few other benefits, such as the ability to keep working without impacting the size of your monthly check. Anyone born in 1960 or later will have a full retirement age of 67 years old.

    But claiming Social Security at age 67 comes with a few downsides retirees need to consider. Here’s the unfortunate truth.

    Two Social Security cards laying on a pile of cash.

    Image source: Getty Images.

    You’re taking significant risks

    Delaying Social Security may work out better for retirees, on average, but that doesn’t mean it’s a risk-free decision. You may very well end up with worse-than-average luck.

    Forgoing Social Security checks for five years may require you to keep working longer, or it could simply force you to draw down other retirement savings. There’s the risk that you could lose your job or become unable to work. There’s the risk that the market performs poorly and you deplete more of your savings than anticipated.

    There’s also the risk that you don’t live long enough to overcome the lost half-decade of Social Security checks. You can expect to receive more in lifetime income from Social Security if you delay, but you have to live to about the average life expectancy for someone in their 60s before you break even.

    Lastly, there’s a risk that the Social Security trust’s reserves become depleted during your lifetime, resulting in a cut in benefits. That could extend the amount of time it takes to reach breakeven compared to claiming benefits as soon as possible before any cuts happen.

    You’re giving up the potential for a bigger benefit

    On the other side of the coin, you have an opportunity to continue delaying Social Security until age 70 to collect a bigger monthly benefit. Delaying three years from 67 to 70 will result in a 24% boost to your Social Security check.

    It’s worth pointing out that the increase in benefits after you reach full retirement age is faster than it is before you reach full retirement age. If you claim at 67, you’re foregoing the steepest part of the curve in benefit increases. And the wait is usually worth it.

    On average, retirees are best off waiting until 70 to claim benefits. That’s the claiming age that provides the greatest expected lifetime payout from the program. A 2019 study from United Income suggests that 57% of seniors should wait until 70 to claim, while just over 10% would be best off claiming at 67.

    You could end up leaving your spouse with less

    A big part of your claiming decision should also consider your spouse, if you have one. Claiming at age 67 comes with a major downside if you were the high earner in your household. You could end up leaving your spouse with less.

    Survivor benefits are a key part of the Social Security program. The benefit ensures a widow or widower can collect up to the same amount in Social Security as the spouse with the highest monthly check. (The benefit is reduced if claimed before they reach full retirement age.) That means if you claim at age 67, you could deny your spouse the potential for a check that’s 24% higher for the rest of their lifetime.

    This joint survivorship consideration makes the expected value of waiting until age 70 even higher for some retirees. In extreme cases where you earned significantly more than your spouse and you’re quite a bit older, you should do everything you can to delay benefits until age 70.

    On the other hand, if you expect to receive survivor benefits at some point, it may make more sense to claim your personal retirement benefit well before age 67.

    Just because full retirement age is one of the most popular ages to claim Social Security doesn’t mean it’s the best age for you. Be sure to understand the nuances and trade-offs of claiming at age 67 before you decide that’s when you want to claim.

    The $22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook

    If you’re like most Americans, you’re a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known “Social Security secrets” could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more… each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we’re all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

    View the “Social Security secrets” »

    The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

    The Unfortunate Truth About Claiming Social Security at Age 67 was originally published by The Motley Fool

    [ad_2]

    Source link