ICYMI: Larson Discusses ‘DOGE’ and Trump-Musk Cuts to Social Security on The Back Room with Andy Ostroy
East Hartford, CT – RealEstateRama – This weekend, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John B. Larson (CT-01) joined The Back Room with Andy Ostroy to discuss Elon Musk’s ‘DOGE,’ the Trump Administration’s cuts to Social Security, and what Democrats are doing to fight back to protect and enhance Social Security for the millions who rely on it.
“[President Trump and Elon Musk are] going to take money by cutting programs. It comes directly out of the pockets of the very people that need it the most,” said Larson. “We have 5 million Americans who get below poverty level checks from the government because Congress hasn’t taken action. We have more than 40% of the 70 million people that are on Social Security — this is the only pension benefit that they have. And you’re going to cut something that Congress has neglected and that, in fact, doesn’t need to be cut, it needs to be enhanced. [This] is why we have a Constitutional crisis and why Republicans are going to have to step up and decide whether or not they’re going to follow the Constitution, or they’re going to follow the dictator and what he says.”
You can view the full transcript here:
Andy Ostroy: Alright, let’s get to Congressman John Larson. He represents Connecticut’s First District. Now in his 13th term, he sits on the influential House Ways and Means committee, including the Subcommittee on trade and the Social Security Subcommittee, where he serves as the Ranking Member. Congressman, welcome into The Back Room.
Rep. Larson: Glad to be with you Andy.
Andy Ostroy: So, I wanted to start off by playing a clip of you last month from the House Ways and Means Committee. That was a hearing about DOGE, and let’s go to that.
Rep. Larson: Where’s the independence of the committee? Where’s the legislature? We’re an equal branch of government, and you start off with a blather? And yet, look at the empty seats here. Where is Elon Musk? I’m sure he’s a genius and is a very credible person because of the wealth he’s accumulated, but that does not put him above the law, or the responsibility to come before this Committee in this Congress. If he’s so great, if these plans and all the fraud and abuse that he found are so imminent, why isn’t he here explaining it? You know why. Because he’s out to privatize Social Security.
Andy Ostroy: Kudos to you, sir, for that outrage. What was going through your mind in that moment as you sat in that room?
Rep. Larson: Well, first and foremost, we forced the hearing because we had put forward Resolutions of Inquiry because they weren’t going to bring them up. So rather than that Resolution, which typically goes to the floor of the House for a direct debate, they can hear it in a Committee. But they adjourned Congress that Tuesday night and held the Committee meeting, unorthodoxly, at in the morning with the idea that no one would be there, and they’d be able to deal with this. So, the outrage was everything that they were doing to deny an opportunity, and of course totally ignoring the fact that, you know, he’s not above the law, and he may be a very successful businessman but he has a responsibility to the American people and the United States Congress to appear before us and answer questions.
And he did not, and I think the rage was up and down the line of the Members of Congress. I guess I just looked a little more throat throbbing with my face turning beet red, etc. But nonetheless, it was and still remains a point of egregious aggravation at them ignoring the law and the responsibility for him to answer these questions. I mean, the American people deserve to know if you’re going to, if you’ve been charged with finding $2 trillion worth of cuts and you say on Fox News that you’re going after Social Security and Medicare, then you know you have an obligation to come before Congress and say well, where are you going to find these cuts and who is it impacting?
And the other thing Andy, as you know, what’s so outrageous about this: what are they finding them for? They’re finding them to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%. You already have $500 billion, and that’s not enough. You need more, and to get more, you’re going to take money by cutting programs. And make no mistake, that is a tax cut when you cut that program, but it comes directly out of the pockets of the very people that need it the most. We have 5 million Americans who get below poverty level checks from the government because Congress hasn’t taken action. We have more than 40% of the 70 million people that are on Social Security — this is the only pension benefit that they have. And you’re going to cut something that Congress has neglected and that, in fact, doesn’t need to be cut, it needs to be enhanced.
It’s not a matter of just protecting Social Security. It’s a matter of making sure when you put your trust in your government, when you invest that money, and you can check it off and look at your paycheck all the time. It says FICA, Federal Insurance Contribution. Whose? Yours. And there’s $2.7 trillion in that Trust Fund, and it’s never missed a payment.
Andy Ostroy: Yeah, look, I’m 65. I’ve been paying into that system for 50 years. I’ve been working since I’m an early teen. That’s my money, my money. It’s not Trump’s money, it’s not Elon Musk’s money, it’s not DOGE’s money, and it’s certainly not the money of some kid named ‘Big Ballz,’ right? So, it’s outrageous what is happening, but back to your hearing and your outrage. And I do want to talk to you about Social Security more in a second, but when I saw you do that, I was very pleased because it was visceral, and it was anger. Where’s the anger in the rest of the party? We see Bernie out there. We see AOC. We see a couple of other people, but if this isn’t a time to use your words, to get throat throbbing, to turn beet red, when is it going to be the time to so viscerally express this kind of outrage in our party?
Rep. Larson: Well, let me say this, that there was an awful lot of anger on the Committee and in the Congress. It often isn’t covered, so thank God for programs like yours etc., that are presenting this to the American people. But in general, those incidents aren’t often covered. If you had been there and watched the whole hearing, you would have heard an awful lot of anger throughout, and in a number of Committee hearings along the way, not just on the Ways and Means Committee as it relates to Social Security, whether its Medicare or Medicaid, and a number of the outrageous things that Trump and Elon Musk have set out to do.
And especially, Elon Musk, because not many people realize that a.) he’s not a Cabinet member and because he’s not a Cabinet member, he didn’t have to get Senate approval. So he’s not been approved, and he’s not had to disclose or put forward any of his conflicts of interest or what his worth and value is and where he gets his money from. Instead, Trump has made him, because volunteers have to do the same thing, he’s made him a special volunteer. Now, that’s, to be fair, that’s legal, but it’s usually for a very short period of time. But because it’s legal doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the responsibility to answer a coequal branch of government.
So, what you’re actually witnessing here is a Constitutional crisis, as to whether or not the legislative branch, in this case controlled in the Senate and the House by the Republicans, is going to stand up and be a coequal branch of government or just bow to the wishes of Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Let us hope when people go home to their Districts and they find out about what they’re attempting to do with Social Security, they’re going to be as outraged as you and everybody else who’d taking a close look at this and saying, “oh my god, how can they do this?” They can’t if Congress stands up. And the hard truth is, as you know, Social Security doesn’t need to be cut. It needs to be expanded. The last time it was expanded, Richard Nixon was President of the United States.
Andy Ostroy: So, are you saying that Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme?
Rep. Larson: Far from a Ponzi Scheme, but I like to say to my Republican colleagues too, and this throws them all off: I said, “you’re looking at the best economic development plan, especially in an inflationary period, that we have.” I give every Republican a Social Security card, not their own, but one that tells them in the 435 Districts, how many Social Security recipients you have, and then how many receive a pension, how many receive disability payments, spousal, widow, and dependent payments, and it lays it all out for them very clearly. And also, and this is why I say it’s an economic development plan: how much money comes into their District monthly?
On average, Andy, on average, it’s over $200 million, especially during an inflationary time, and especially since it hasn’t been enhanced since 1971. Imagine what increasing that money does. Where do people spend that money? Right back in the Districts they live in, at the local grocery store, at the pharmacy, putting gas in their automobile, paying their rent, their mortgages, heating and cooling their homes. You get it, you understand, and so do all America[ns], so why hasn’t it been done? And listen, there’s blame for both parties, but specifically, this legislation has now been out there for close to a decade, and we need to adopt it. In fact, we even have tax cuts that Trump is proposing, except we pay for them, which is the right thing to do so that money doesn’t come out of the Trust Fund.
As you pointed out at the outset of this show, that’s your money and that belongs to you, and you gave your government the charge and the trust to not just take that money and keep it there, but to return it to you by way of pension or disability or spousal or dependent coverage. That’s the brilliance of FDR and that’s what preserves — that is the safety net for capitalism and entrepreneurialism. That, along with Medicare and Medicaid, are what allows us to take risks in a capitalistic system. Allows us because if, through no fault of an employee or someone else’s responsibility, that business fails, there is still something there — an insurance program that works on your behalf, provided by your government, AKA We the People.
Andy Ostroy: Exactly. You are in your 13th term, so that means you’ve been at this for quite a while. In politics, Social Security and Medicare used to be considered the third rail. You don’t step on it. Why is that changing now? What makes Republicans think this is safe territory for them?
Rep. Larson: Well, you didn’t change on it, but also this prevented people from taking action on it. You know, it shouldn’t be, in my humble opinion, shouldn’t be regarded as a third rail. It should be regarded as precisely and exactly what it is. It is the safety net for capitalism and entrepreneurialism. It allows people to go out and invest and take individual risk, knowing that even if they fail, and even if the people that they hire are to find themselves without a paycheck, there’s a safety net there for them. That’s the genius of Roosevelt. And imagine that Richard Nixon was President of the United States the last time Congress enhanced the program across-the-board.
I know people are going to say “Hey, what a minute what about Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill?” Well, what Tip did then, remember Reagan wanted to privatize it. Bob Dole stepped in and said, “No no, no, no!” This is politically too volatile. People like it. Republican, Democrat, and Independent: you take a vote. They all love their Social Security.
So, Dole actually engineered a program that would extend the solvency. Primarily, that was the work of Tip O’Neill but to do it, you may recall this Andy, they raised the age from 65, your current age, to 67. In doing so, what people don’t understand, for every year you raise the age, that’s a 7% cut in your benefits.
Which is why our colleagues on the other side are proposing raising the age to 70 and calling that a compromise. How is that a compromise if you’re losing 21% of your benefits that haven’t been enhanced since 1971? That’s not a compromise. That’s ludicrous and outrageous that we would even be thinking that! We’ve been entrusted to do the job on behalf of the American people. My God, you’re telling me that the wealthiest nation in the world, on the face of this earth, doesn’t have the capability to do that?
And oh, by the way, what Biden said was right. How are we going to do that? We’re going to have everybody pay into Social Security, including, as Biden pointed out, people making above $400,000. And just by having them pay their fair share — we’re not asking them to pay anything that any other American doesn’t, just pay their fair share into the safety net of capitalism and entrepreneurism that keeps it on its feet and growing.
But as you know, for many of them, they pay little. They’re done paying in January or pay nothing at all. That has got to end. And in doing so, we’ll not only enhance the program, but we’ll extend its solvency. We won’t do it by cutting benefits. We’ll do it by making sure that nobody in the United States can ever invest in this retirement program that the country sponsors and retire into poverty.
Andy Ostroy: You know, one of the things Musk and DOGE have been doing is attacking the system from the inside, administratively. Can you speak a little about what the folks at home are actually losing right now under this assault on the system?
Rep. Larson: Yeah, no, you’re absolutely right. What they’re, first of all, what are they after?
That is a question that the Trump Administration and Elon Musk and DOGE must answer. They need to do that under oath before the [Ways and Means] Committee because without it, what they’ve done is gained access to the information and the data.
For what purpose? Every American should be outraged and say “Hey, wait a minute, what gives them the right? What gives ‘Big Ballz’ the right to be looking at my information and data? And what are they going to use it for?” I’m glad that the judge most recently ruled that they cannot do that and have to forego that.
They’ll fight and resist it, which is why we have a Constitutional crisis and why Republicans are going to have to step up and decide whether or not they’re going to follow the Constitution, or they’re going to follow the dictator and what he says.
That’s what should have the public outraged. The meddling with these programs, with no Constitutional authority, no approval from the legislative branch of government, just the direction of the President of the United States. Who also says, “Oh no! We’re not touching Social Security or Medicare” on one hand, and then you have Elon Musk going on Fox News saying, “Oh yeah, well, you know, 70% of the budget is comprised of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and national defense. Of course, that’s where we’re going!”
It’s no coincidence, as we said earlier, that he’s been asked to find $2 trillion. By the way, yeah, your money and every Americans’ money is part of that $2 trillion that’s in the Trust Fund. That’s what they have their eyes on.
Andy Ostroy: And to what degree are they closing Social Security offices and staffing, with folks trying to get through to the offices to speak to someone about a problem. What’s going on there?
Rep. Larson: Well, thank you for mentioning that. As you know, this isn’t the first time that Social Security… there has been an attempt to privatize it. Ronald Reagan tried to do it. Bob Dole talked him out of it. George Bush tried to do it, and he was blocked from doing it as well.
So, what they’ve done and said is, “OK, we’re going to try a different method. What we’re going to do is undermine Social Security from within.” To your point, they’ve already dismissed 7,000 employees.
Rosa DeLauro and I and [Senator] Dick Blumenthal held a hearing out front of the Middletown Social Security office here. I was up in Torrington earlier in that regional office to say we’re not going to allow them to shut down these regional offices. That’s where people have to go to get their information.
They’re making it inconvenient and difficult so they can make the argument, “Look! Social Security isn’t going to be there for you. Look how difficult it is to get in touch.” So, they’re weakening it from the inside.
Now imagine this, this impacts 73 million people. The administrative cost—I live in an insurance capital of the world, in Hartford, CT. The administrative cost to run insurance agencies is 16-26%, depending upon the complexity and difficulty of the situation. [Social Security] is the largest insurance program in the nation by a runaway. Over 73 million people, and it’s currently operating administratively for under 1%. Trump and Musk are trying to make that worse that it’s less than one half of a percent.
Of course, it’s going to be more difficult for people to get information, to get someone on the phone, to get an answer. Their goal here is to say, “See, we’re telling you this program doesn’t work. It’s too confusing. It’s too bureaucratic.”
Which, obviously, if there were simply just 2% [administrative costs], people there doing this work, people would receive their answers, [and] they’d be able to speak to a human being. They’d know exactly what was there in the case. That’s still, amongst in the private sector or the government sector, [would be] the lowest and most efficient and effective agency in terms of management.
Look, we should always be looking for fraud, abuse and waste, but you ought to point out where it is, what it is, and go after those who are doing it. Don’t come with these across-the-board statements but then don’t back them up or validate them. Just use old stereotypes and fiction to try to make a case for something that really doesn’t exist.
Andy Ostroy: I wonder what must have gone through your head when you heard Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick say that his 94-year-old mother-in-law, if she didn’t get her Social Security check one month, she’d be fine with it. And worse: only fraudsters scream and make an issue about something like that. What were you thinking when you heard that?
Rep. Larson: Well, forget what I was thinking. I do town halls all the time. People were outraged and the fact that, as we said earlier, for over 30 million people, this is the only benefit that they have. And the only means they have to feed themselves, to pay their rent or mortgage, to keep the heat on, to keep the lights on at night. So those kitchen table conversations are one of total disbelief that this could possibly be happening to them. What possibly could they be thinking to do this?
Look it, as someone who’s in Congress and is outraged by it, but I’m not in a position like the people I represent are, who are struggling and imagine, when they hear that Social Security hasn’t been addressed or enhanced since 1971, they should be angered. They should be outraged and so should the American people.
Whether you have a pension, whether you have another benefit and you look at Social Security as an important augmentation of your retirement, it’s still critical and key. As you have pointed out, it’s your money! And it’s not doing what it was supposed to do in a manner, in which, Roosevelt’s vision, which still remains genius, in order to protect and preserve the very system that my Republican colleagues claim they want to see thrive.
Andy Ostroy: So, you have this House budget bill, Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ which has the goal of giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy without supposedly cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. What do you think is actually going to end up happening? Are they going to move forward and make drastic cuts? Or do you think, in the end, is there too much pressure, too much outrage from not just Democrats but from, to your point, the electorate.
Rep. Larson: Well, I think that that’s the whole issue. The issue comes down to: will there be the outrage? And I believe there will. I believe it’s that outrage and the public becoming aware of where they’re going to find these cuts. And again, and for what purpose? Is this for the purpose of providing a greater good to the society in general that will uplift all Americans?
No. This is to give the nation’s wealthiest 1% a tax cut by taking his tax cut bill of 2017, which sunsets this year in 2025, and making it permanent and adding to that. That bill, as you may recall, over 70% of the tax cuts went to the nation’s wealthiest 1%.
That is not helping the general welfare and well-being of the country. And again, where are they getting it from? In this case, on the backs of the very people, our fellow citizens that need it the most, as well as all Americans who have paid and contributed into the system.
Most people don’t realize that there’s a cap on Social Security. It’s currently $[176,100]. It grows every year. In my opinion, it should be lifted altogether, but just by lifting the cap on people making over $400,000, we not only extend the solvency of Social Security, but we enhance it for the first time since 1971—in more than 50 years—an across-the-board increase for everyone, making sure that people are no longer paying taxes on their Social Security if they continue to work, making sure that teachers and firefighters and police officers who paid into the system and back in 1983 were denied their Social Security get their Social Security and that it‘s paid for, to make sure that there’s no, you know, waiting [period] for, people have died waiting for their disability payments in Social Security.
This system is our number one insurance plan, but it could be operating more effectively and obviously needs to be enhanced so that it can able Americans to survive during these inflationary time periods. And who needs that money the most during inflation? People who have nothing else but this as income, and where do they spend it? Right back in the very communities that need help during inflation.
Everybody should be on board with this because it’s in the overall best interest of the country on all fronts, and the money only comes back to the very nation we love and helps the people that have made us the great country that we are.
Andy Ostroy: Yeah, you know the real ultimate outrage is that Elon Musk, richest human on Earth, apparently takes in about $8 million a day in government grants, and he’s trying to take away from those who take in about $60 a day. And to your point, that’s all they have. It’s just unconscionable.
Rep. Larson: It is unconscionable, and it’s outrageous. But the good news here is that people are starting to become aware, and people are now looking at Social Security, instead of it being a third rail politically. I got what you were saying before, but not a third rail from the standpoint that you shouldn’t touch it or go near it. No, it needs to be improved and enhanced and here’s why. And oh, by the way, here’s what it does.
So, you talk to any small businessman or any small local community, etc., and all of the sudden the people in those communities have money to spend, so they can buy their groceries, so they can pay their heating bills, so they can pay their rent or their mortgage. That’s helping the whole economy out. And it’s also providing the kind of dignity and the ability to sustain themselves that our fellow citizens need and deserve and have earned as Americans.
Andy Ostroy: Congressman Larson, thank you for your time. Come back and talk with us again.
Rep. Larson: Look forward to it. Thanks again, Andy.
