Hello! I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to Dean Baker for shedding light on the ongoing plight of the working class, particularly how the wealthy often seek to undermine Social Security, a crucial lifeline for many in the declining middle class. It seems some would rather see everyday people struggle in their later years. If only those who hoard wealth would follow the example of Dolly Parton, who has consistently given back to her community, providing books for children and support to those in need:
🚨FLASHBACK: Dolly Parton said in 2018 she never expected to be known as “the Book Lady,” referencing her nonprofit program that mails free books to children.
“That just goes to show you that you can’t judge a book by looking at the cover.”
🎥: C-SPAN pic.twitter.com/ufabb7iXRB
— Off The Press (@OffThePress1) August 25, 2026
Dolly Parton mailed a free book every month to any child whose family signed up, for 30 years. The program passed 325 million books before she died at 80. https://t.co/9sPgdd4qK9
— Thought Catalog (@ThoughtCatalog) August 25, 2026
Coming from humble beginnings as the daughter of a sharecropper, Parton understands the struggles of poverty all too well:
She did not merely sing about hope. She delivered it in person.
After the devastating 2016 Gatlinburg wildfires destroyed more than 2,400 homes and businesses, Dolly Parton stepped forward to support the families who had lost everything.
Through her My People Fund, more than… pic.twitter.com/jkmFPIkGPN
— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) August 26, 2026
While Baker brings valuable insights, he overlooks that the federal government has the capacity to net spend to finance Social Security and Medicare. However, with inflation on the rise, there would need to be a significant reallocation of federal funds towards initiatives that stimulate considerable economic growth, such as infrastructure projects. This would involve cutting unnecessary expenditures in the military-industrial complex and leveraging federal medical spending to lower healthcare costs. Unfortunately, these require the will and competence that seem lacking among those in power today.
By Dean Baker, co-founder and senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is also the author of several influential books, including “Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better Bargain for Working People,” “The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive,” and “Social Security: The Phony Crisis” (with Mark Weisbrot). His blog, “Beat the Press,” focuses on media coverage of economic issues. Originally published at Common Dreams
It is crucial to recognize that an extreme position does not become less extreme when compared to a more radical stance. For instance, proposing harm to 100 children does not become a moderate viewpoint simply because someone else suggests harming 200 children. This perspective applies to claims from “moderate” voices about addressing the $40 trillion debt through both spending cuts and tax increases. In reality, apart from military and homeland security spending, there is very little excess to cut; as even Elon Musk has inadvertently noted. If there’s an issue with the deficit, it lies on the tax side, given that the wealthy have increasingly accrued a larger share of national income over the past fifty years and are resistant to taxing their fortunes.
The major media outlets, largely controlled by affluent individuals, perpetuate a misleading narrative, promoting both spending cuts and tax increases as a balanced approach. However, advocating cuts to essential programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid simply to appease wealthy donors is anything but moderate.
Republicans have championed these tax cuts, aware that they would exacerbate the deficit yet shying away from making unpopular cuts in spending. Now they leverage their media influence to assert the necessity of cutting programs to compensate for the lost tax revenue from tax breaks established by past administrations, including Reagan, Bush II, and Trump.
The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post serves as a prime example of this faux-moderate stance in its editorial entitled “To get the national debt under control, start with the retirement state.” The article argues that a two-income couple earning an average of $100,000 a year, retiring in 2025, can expect to receive lifetime Social Security benefits of $739k compared to tax contributions of merely $597k. For a similar couple retiring in 2045, the expected lifetime benefits rise to $987k against tax contributions of $735k.
After illustrating this apparent disparity in Social Security, the editorial makes a case for reducing benefits for high-income individuals. This is a deceptive form of argumentation.
If the intention is to reduce benefits for high-income earners, a fair analysis would compare their relative taxes and benefits. Social Security is specifically designed to have a progressive payout structure, meaning that moderate-income workers receive a higher return on their contributions relative to their taxes.
To make a meaningful comparison, let’s examine the relevant figures. (Source: the same source used above.)
As illustrated, high-income individuals contribute significantly more in taxes compared to the benefits they receive. For a high-income woman retiring in 2025, the difference amounts to $263k, while for a high-income man, it stands at $336k. These gaps narrow to $259k for high-income women and $346k for men retiring in 2045.
If the goal is to advocate for reduced benefits for high-income retirees, it is essential to present their tax and benefit data directly. It is widely acknowledged that Social Security offers an attractive deal for moderate-income retirees; however, these individuals often have lower incomes when they retire. It’s likely the Washington Post editorial team felt it would be inappropriate to suggest reducing the average monthly Social Security benefit of $2,071.
Moreover, the editorial suggests that while cutting Social Security, we should also anticipate an increased reliance on private 401(k) plans. This not only heightens financial risk but is also inefficient, as private 401(k)s cost over 40 times more to administer per dollar of benefits than Social Security itself. While Mr. Bezos might be eager to divert more funds to his affluent associates in the financial industry, most everyday people prefer that their funds support working families.
Medicare Benefits: Profits for Hospitals and Drug Companies Do Not Equate to Worker Benefits
The Post’s graphs present a significant disparity between Medicare taxes and the benefits received, which is also misleading.
In the United States, we spend nearly twice as much per person on healthcare compared to the average of other wealthy nations. This is not indicative of receiving superior care; rather, our life expectancy ranks among the lowest for developed countries.
A significant portion of healthcare spending is funneled straight into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, insurance firms, hospitals, and healthcare providers. We often pay double or more compared to other wealthy nations. A transparent and unbiased analysis would suggest aligning our healthcare expenditures with those of other nations. Instead, the Washington Post seeks to cast blame on the nation’s retirees.
Let’s be clear: advocating for cuts to Social Security and Medicare to mitigate the deficit is not a moderate viewpoint; it is an attack on millions of hardworking individuals, geared towards preserving the wealth of the affluent rather than reconsidering healthcare waste or taxing the wealthy properly. This position may be extreme, yet the wealthy media barons promoting it will endeavor to frame their stance as fair and balanced.
