Equal Time: Dudek’s Bizarre Attack on Rep. Larson
Former Acting Social Security Commissioner Leland Dudek must be a skilled contortionist, because he tied himself into knots attacking a true champion of Social Security, Rep. John Larson (D-CT) in a recent Hartford Courant opinion piece — only a few months before Connecticut’s Democratic primary. (Our PAC has endorsed Congressman Larson for re-election as a longtime champion of Social Security.)
Dudek’s column prompted a letter to the editor by NCPSSM CEO, Max Richtman:::
“I’m not sure why Leland Dudek felt compelled to inject himself into Connecticut’s District-01 Democratic primary by smearing the incumbent. I have known the congressman for nearly three decades; There is no more passionate protector of Social Security in the U.S. House than John Larson.” – NCPSSM President Max Richtman, letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant
It’s beyond audacious that Dudek, who handed the keys to the Social Security Administration to Elon Musk and DOGE in 2025, accuses Rep. Larson of undermining the program. Dudek spent his time at SSA aligning himself with DOGE, not protecting beneficiaries. The acting commissioner opened the door for the Trump/DOGE regime to eventually:
*Cut more than 7,000 jobs SSA, creating an understaffing crisis and massive “brain drain.”
*Copy huge troves of Americans’ personal data to be misused and abused for purposes unrelated to Social Security
*Weaken customer service on phone lines; close and understaff SSA field offices.
*Manipulate statistics to make it appear that customer service had improved, when the opposite is true
Meanwhile, Congressman Larson, as ranking member of the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, has demanded accountability and transparency. He accused Musk and DOGE of “the largest data theft in American history” – and called for participants in the stolen data scheme to be prosecuted.
We’re not sure why fmr. SSA acting commissioner Leland Dudek (right) gratuitously attacked Rep. John Larson, a bona fide champion of Social Security
Dudek bizarrely accuses Larson of “inaction” on Social Security, despite the fact that the congressman introduced (with more than 200 U.S. House cosponsors) the Social Security 2100 Act – to extend trust fund solvency and expand benefits. Rep. Larson also has been one of the loudest voices against Republican proposals to cut and privatize Social Security. (The 14-term congressman earns a 100% rating on our NCPSSM legislative scorecard.)
In Dudek’s alternate universe, Rep. Larson somehow abets President Trump’s agenda. In reality, the congressman has rightly warned that Trump is attempting to “dismantle and privatize” Social Security through “chaos and confusion.” According to news reports, Dudek was initially enthusiastic about the DOGE mission, cooperating fully with Musk’s young ‘shock troops.’
In a 2025 recording obtained by ProPublica, Dudek claims that he soon became skeptical. “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,” according to the online news site, Government Exec. But instead of apologizing to the people of Connecticut for his role in compromising Social Security, Dudek now deflects by attacking seniors’ staunchest ally on Capitol Hill, Congressman John Larson.
Leland Dudek lets DOGE run amok at SSA (ProPublica)
As Rep. Larson said last year, “When we take back the House of Representatives, Social Security will be our top priority, and action will take place within the first 100 days. With 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, it’s time to not only speak up, but speak out and act.” This cuts right to the core difference between Dudek’s record and Larson’s. Dudek enabled enormous disruption at the agency that delivers Americans’ earned benefits; John Larson has consistently fought to defend and boost those benefits.
************
For another perspective on Larson’s candidacy, click HERE
Listen to Congressman Larson on our podcast HERE
Watch Rep. Larson chatting with our CEO Max Richtman HERE
Trump’s Medicaid Work Requirements Will Rob 5-10 Million of Health Coverage
Medicaid work requirements are coming for millions of people’s health care. This is thanks to Trump’s Big, Ugly Bill, which mandates that states institute work requirements in order for patients to enroll or maintain health coverage under Medicaid. Work requirements are projected to strip 5-10 million people of health insurance in the coming years. And for no good reason, other than Republicans’ ideological opposition to government health care programs — and as a way to pay for Trump’s massive tax giveaway to the wealthy. (Although recently, Trump offered a little more context recently, saying the nation “can’t ‘afford’ Medicaid” anymore because of spending on “military protection” (AKA, his Iran War.)
The Big Ugly Bill — championed by wealthy GOP donors, tech bros, Big Pharma, and Big Oil — mandates that adults enrolled in Medicaid demonstrate that they are working, in school, or volunteering in order to obtain or maintain coverage. States are required to enforce these work requirements no later than January 1, 2027, though they have the option to implement them sooner. As of Friday, May 1, Nebraska will have the dubious distinction of becoming the first state to implement these new work requirements. (They’re just SO excited to take people’s health care away!)
Save Medicaid rally in 2025, before Trump’s Big, Ugly Bill became law
Work requirements are incredibly gratuitous (and enforcing them can be costly). Seventy percent of Medicaid recipients already work or are in school. The others may not be able to work because of physical or mental disabilities, job discrimination, and other extenuating circumstances.
Let’s be clear: When Medicaid was enacted in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, there was no requirement that recipients work. Medicaid was designed to provide health coverage for vulnerable Americans who could not otherwise afford medical insurance. Full stop. It was enacted in tandem with Medicare, which also did not have any kind of work mandate.
LBJ believed that in a nation as prosperous as America, no one should be denied medical care because of their financial status. He didn’t mention anything about having to work for benefits.
We are one of the world’s only industrial nations that does not offer its residents universal health care. Nearly 80% of the world’s countries provide their residents some form of government-sponsored health care.
There is a straight line between the Republicans’ current obsession with punishing society’s ‘undeserving’ and less fortunate and Ronald Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” rhetoric. As the New York Times noted last year, “Republicans targeting safety net programs once invoked women they claimed were living lavishly on government funds. Now as they seek to pare back Medicaid, the imagery has changed — but not the argument.”
Meanwhile, some red states have decided that the federal minimum work requirement is too lenient. Indiana is leading that charge. Idaho has already followed Indiana’s lead, with the governor signing a stringent requirement into law on April 10. Similar efforts are gaining traction in Arizona, Missouri, and Kentucky.
If the aim is to promote employment, work requirements are failing spectacularly. They have not appreciably boosted employment in the states that have tried them (before the Big, Ugly Bill’s mandate). If, on the other hand, the objective of work requirements is to punish vulnerable people by stripping them of health coverage, it’s already promising to work splendidly.
“They (work requirements) haven’t worked in Arkansas which was the first state to experiment with them. The result was that 18,000 fewer people were on Medicaid. It’s obvious that when you’re sick and need health care — regardless of if you’re working — you need that access to health care. That’s why it makes no sense to tie work requirements to Medicaid.” – Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM senior health policy analyst
The data from Arkansas paints a clear picture. Many were booted off Medicaid not because they weren’t working, but because they couldn’t prove that they met the state’s work requirements. Doing so requires navigating a lot of bureaucratic red tape; many people give up or simply can’t complete the certification process. The new policy is even more unforgiving, as it reviews eligibility at both application and renewal, creating a cycle of exclusion that makes it increasingly difficult to enroll or maintain a spot in the program.
Older Medicaid patients could be hit hard by work requirements (Istock)
The risks are even higher for older workers who are not yet eligible for Medicare – a group we refer to as “near seniors.”
“Those who are near elderly — older workers ages 50-64 — have never been subject to any kind of work requirement before. We are worried about this group in particular. They are being laid off at higher rates. There is an idea that we need to clear room for a younger, newer workforce.” – Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM senior health policy analyst
Most modern societies view health care as a right, not a privilege. Under Trump’s reign, the privileged are stripping health care from those who can least afford it.
*************************************************************************************************
Note: Here are some of the groups likely to be hurt by Trump’s work requirements:
- Low-income adults or “gig” economy workers with unstable work (source)
- Parents and caregivers — especially single parents (source)
- People with disabilities or chronic conditions (source)
- Students (source)
- Rural and transportation constrained enrollees (source)
Listen to our podcast HERE
Learn more about this from Health Policy Expert Anne Montgomery HERE
Tommy Tuberville Thinks Your Social Security Benefits are a Scam
Last week, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) showed a blatant disregard for 1.2 million of his constituents who depend on Social Security when he called the program a “scam” in a viral X post. The comment drew immediate backlash from seniors’ advocates, Democrats, and local media in his home state of Alabama.
@SenTuberville on X
Tuberville — who insists on being addressed by the moniker of “coach” from his days leading the Auburn University football team — has had an unremarkable tenure in the Senate, known mostly for partisan mud-slinging, hateful rhetoric, and sketchy financial practices. If we were to use coach-speak, a “highlight reel” from his time on Capitol Hill would include:
*Blocking hundreds of military appointments/promotions: Tuberville held up nearly 450 senior military promotions for roughly ten months in protest of a Pentagon policy reimbursing travel for service members seeking abortion‑related care. His blockade left key national‑security positions vacant and drew bipartisan criticism for undermining the armed forces.
*Repeated violations of the STOCK Act: He failed to timely disclose about 132 stock trades between 2021 and 2023, valuing roughly $1–3.5 million, including in companies with business before committees he sits on. Federal regulators fined him over a quarter‑million dollars for repeated violations of the law.
*Racially charged attacks on public officials: He publicly implied that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani bears responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
Tuberville’s “scam” remark is part of a larger anti-Social Security narrative that the right has deployed for decades and is intensifying now — in hopes of undermining one of America’s most successful social insurance programs.
During a congressional hearing last month, GOP Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) called Social Security a “forced retirement program.” He has also called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” placing him in the nefarious company of Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump himself (in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve).
The libertarian Cato Institute’s Romina Boccia recently put her own spin on this, labeling Social Security a “legal Ponzi scheme” and arguing that the entire program must be “re-invented.” (We dismantled Boccia’s argument in a book review last year.)
The sharks are circling Social Security because of the projected shortfall in the program’s trust fund in the early 2030’s, which will result in an automatic benefit cut if Congress takes no action. We have repeatedly demanded that Congress take action. As our CEO Max Richtman told CBS News, “My takeaway from all of this is we don’t have much time to spare to address the shortfall.”
That doesn’t mean the program should be cut or radically transformed. We have endorsed legislation introduced by congressional Democrats to bring more revenue into the Social Security system by adjusting the payroll wage cap – so that the wealthy contribute their fair share.
Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) are two of the Democrats who have introduced legislation to strengthen Social Security without cutting benefits
Unfortunately, the political right proposes to raise the retirement age, institute ‘means testing’ (which is antithetical to the concept of Social Security as an ‘earned benefit’), and gamble workers’ payroll contributions on Wall Street (privatization).
Meanwhile, the Trump administration seems to be abusing and misusing executive power to wreck the Social Security Administration, which delivers benefits to some 70 million Americans.
Just this week, the administration reportedly has closed at least 12 field offices in mostly rural areas – making it harder for seniors, people with disabilities, and families to access benefits in person.
There has been significant public backlash since the Trump regime began decimating the Social Security Administration (SSA), including DOGE’s copying and misusing Americans’ personal Social Security data. But the response from the right has been to continue trying to de-legitimize the entire program so that it can be cut and privatized — while Trump continues to sabotage it from within. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “Social Security War Room” has just issued a new report documenting the impact of Trump administration recklessness at SSA, concluding that severe cutbacks at the agency are having a “catastrophic” effect on seniors and people with disabilities.
The Trump administration reportedly has shuttered at least 12 rural Social Security field offices around the U.S.
Despite Tuberville’s (and others’) rhetoric, Social Security is not a “scam.” It is a social insurance program paid for by workers in exchange for benefits that replace a portion of their income when they most need it — upon retirement, disability, or the death of a family breadwinner. Every year, Social Security keeps tens of millions of our most vulnerable citizens from slipping into poverty.
It is not perfect and has been strengthened over the years (as Congress did in 1983). But Social Security has been working for 90 years and remains overwhelmingly popular with the public. Sorry, Senator Tuberville: If Social Security were a scam, it surely would be the longest-running, most popular, universally beneficial, and victimless ‘scam’ ever.
(For more on actual scams, see: Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Sneakers, and TrumpRx.)
*****************************
Watch our documentary about Social Security’s 90-year history here.
Listen to our podcast with former Alabama Senator Doug Jones HERE.
Trump Throws Medicare, Medicaid Under The Bus for War in Iran
We always knew Trump wasn’t sincere about protecting Medicare and Medicaid. But he just betrayed his own lie by saying that the two programs – which provide 140 million people with health coverage – should NOT EXIST on the federal level. Why? Because defense should be the federal government’s only priority.
Trump didn’t run as a libertarian. But his (poorly worded) declaration would make the Cato Institute blush:
“It’s not possible for us to take care of… Medicare, Medicaid. They have to do it on a state basis. All these little scams… you have to let states take care of them. We have to take care of one thing: military protection.” – President Donald Trump, April 1, 2026
Trump clearly is using his undeclared war on Iran to justify cutting health care for older and lower income Americans. In other words: we apparently can afford $200 billion for a senseless war in the Middle East, but not for our country’s social safety net programs.
Trump’s remarks — specifically that these landmark programs can be solely administered at the state level — are ludicrous. (So what else is new?) Medicare is by definition a federal program available to all Americans equally. The states could not possibly run Medicare — let alone afford it.
As our senior health policy expert Anne Montgomery explains:
“Sending Medicare to the states is a terrible idea that will never happen. The program doesn’t work that way. It’s a federal guarantee that ensures seniors everywhere receive the same care and protections, no matter where they live.” -Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM
As for Medicaid, it already is a federal-state partnership. But Medicaid depends on the federal government for about 70% of its funding. The states are already scrambling to mitigate the damage from Trump’s “Big, Ugly Bill,” which cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid to fund a tax cut for the wealthy and big corporations.
Advocates worry that Trump and Congressional Republicans are laying the groundwork for another ugly bill using the same budget reconciliation process as last time.Anne Montgomery fears that such a bill would take a scalpel to even more critical health care funding:
“A second reconciliation bill would do a lot more damage — programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and possibly even Medicare are certainly at risk. What we’re seeing is a clear assault on the nation’s major health care programs.” – Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM
This all amounts to what Montgomery calls “a war on seniors and their earned benefits.” In 2024, a majority of voters 65+ backed Trump at the ballot box. Today, only 14 months after his inauguration, 57% of that group disapproves of his performance in office.
In the face of this, why should any senior (other than the wealthy) support Trump-aligned GOP candidates in the upcoming 2026 elections?
Trump and his minions claim that our crucial social insurance programs are rife with ‘fraud,’ in order to justify gutting them. But Montgomery, who previously worked at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzing waste, fraud, and abuse, calls BS on that:
“If this administration were serious about fiscal responsibility, they’d target real cost drivers like defense spending — not vital health programs.” – Anne Montgomery, NCPSSM
After DOGE inflicted trauma and chaos on the Social Security Administration, a devastating Big, Ugly Bill, and exorbitant military misadventures, forgive us for observing that none of Trump’s real agenda feels very “America First.”
*********
Watch Anne Montgomery take apart TrumpRx here.
Listen to our podcast about how the Trump administration is mucking with traditional Medicare here.
Fortune Columnist Would Rather Cut Social Security Than Make Payroll Wage Cap More Fair
The right-wing barrage of anti-Social Security propaganda continues. In fact, we’re finding ourselves having to shoot down at least one misleading (or misguided) opinion piece every month. Today’s response was provoked by a recent column in Fortune: “Social Security has 6 years left. The fix that sounds cruelest may be the smartest.”
Let’s start with the headline. Social Security does not have six years left. The program will go on indefinitely as long as people are working and paying into the system. It’s accurate to say that Social Security’s trust fund reserves will become depleted in some six years — in the unlikely event that Congress takes no pre-emptive action.
The Fortune piece, written by business editor Nick Lichtenberg, leans on a new study by the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), and argues that aggressive benefit cuts — including raising the retirement age to 69 — are the best cure for Social Security’s financial ills.
Lichtenberg acknowledges that public opinion is strongly in favor of revenue side solutions like raising (or even scrapping) the payroll tax cap – so that the wealthy pay their fair share. He even goes as far to call benefit cuts “politically radioactive.” How silly of the public to prefer solutions that favor the average worker over the country’s financial elites!
Despite this, the author insists that “dynamic economic modeling” shows aggressive cuts will produce the most economic growth, as though the resulting gains will inevitably find their way back to seniors. This framing ignores the fact that Social Security contributes $2.6 trillion to the economy on an annual basis and supports over 12 million jobs.
The Wharton model that Lichtenberg loves contains five options, from tax‑heavy (Option A) to cuts‑heavy (Option E). Of those, Lichtenberg all but endorses Option E: No new taxes, deeper benefit‑formula reductions, and a Social Security full retirement age raised to 69.
Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy at NCPSSM, says Option E is a non-starter for Social Security advocates:
“Option E is the worst. Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut, plain and simple. Not everyone is living longer, and it ignores the realities of people who retire early or work in physically demanding jobs. Claiming benefits at age 62 already means a 32 percent cut in benefits; raising the full retirement age to 69 would push that reduction up to nearly two‑thirds of a full benefit.” – Dan Adcock, NCPSSM
Dan Adcock, NCPSSM’s Director of Government Relations and Policy
The idea that everyone can simply “live longer and work longer” is a myth. Physical laborers exit the workforce earlier than their white collar counterparts. Some marginalized groups are experiencing declining age expectancies. Many people in their 60s already struggle to find or keep employment, thanks to layoffs and age discrimination.
In what might be the most laughable argument of the whole piece, Lichtenberg asserts that smaller Social Security checks will create an “incentive to save.”
That fairy tale only works if you assume most households can ramp up savings at will. In reality, only about a third of Americans are close to saving enough for retirement. The rest live paycheck to paycheck, grappling with the rising costs of housing, health care, and student debt.
Cutting Social Security benefits will not turn America into a nation of savers, and will certainly not reverse skyrocketing costs of living. Instead, it will push more seniors into poverty, which will deepen their reliance on SNAP, Medicaid, and other safety‑net programs.
“If Social Security benefits are gutted, it will only shift the burden onto other parts of government like SNAP and Medicaid, which means taxpayers will still be on the hook — just in a different, more damaging way.” – Dan Adcock, NCPSSM
Of course, Trump and the Republicans in Congress have already cut those safety net programs by more than $1 trillion.
Meanwhile, the Wharton study shows that slightly adjusting the payroll wage cap would preserve trust fund surpluses until 2058! But Lichtenberg dismisses this as the “wrong” move, arguing that Option A does not deliver as much ‘economic growth’ as deep cuts. (Again, cutting benefits would diminish the stimulus effect of Social Security on the economy at large.)
Democratic lawmakers (including Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Brendan Boyle, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative John Larson, and others) already have proposed lifting the payroll wage cap to bring more revenue into the system – without cutting benefits. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative John Larson (D-CT), for example, have both offered bills that would apply the payroll tax to all wages above $400,000.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has a bill to adjust the Social Security payroll wage cap
The Fortune piece dismisses Option A as politically expedient but economically wrong. But it is morally wrong – or, to borrow from the title of the Fortune piece, downright cruel – to cut the benefits of seniors on fixed incomes in order to spare the wealthy from contributing their fair share.
******************
Read our CEO Max Richtman’s recent Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post HERE.
Listen to our podcast HERE