When the Republican Party’s domestic policy megabill — the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was still taking shape in May, GOP officials were determined to include a provision about investing $1,000 on behalf of every American baby born over the next four years.
They just weren’t sure what to call the policy.
The original plan said the funds would put into a “money account for growth and advancement,” which naturally led to a politically convenient acronym: “MAGA” accounts. But the party ultimately decided that was too subtle, so Republicans settled on a more direct approach and said money would go into “Trump accounts.”
The underlying idea has been around for many years — policymakers, including Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, have traditionally called them “baby bonds” — though the GOP alternative is a little different. As The Washington Monthly recently explained, “[J]ust as the shuttered Trump University was a poor facsimile of a real school, Trump Accounts are a poor copycat of the ambitious ‘baby bonds’ idea championed for decades by Republican and Democratic lawmakers. ... Far from revolutionary, Trump Accounts are ineffectual, inefficient, and of little benefit to the lower-income families who most need a boost.”
As Politico reported, the White House Cabinet apparently likes them anyway:
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday framed the president’s new ‘Trump accounts’ as a transformative tool for long-term wealth building and a ‘backdoor for privatizing Social Security.’ Bessent said the new tax-deferred investment accounts, which were created by President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax law earlier this month, could be a way to boost financial literacy and young voters’ engagement in the economy.
The logic of Bessent’s perspective was difficult to follow. According to his pitch at a Brietbart event in Washington, D.C., the treasury secretary believes young people will be less likely to “want to bring down the system” — and vote for candidates such as Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee in New York City’s mayoral race — if they’re literally invested in the market.
Bessent added, “In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security. If, all of a sudden, these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer, too.”
The Cabinet secretary didn’t elaborate on why, exactly, he thinks this is a “backdoor” for privatizing Social Security, or why the Trump administration sees privatizing Social Security as a worthwhile policy goal — though I'm certainly looking forward to his future comments on the subject. (The accounts included in the megabill won’t have any direct impact on Social Security benefits.)
But the quote has raised eyebrows anyway.
“Calling this a five-alarm fire is an understatement, and between Bessent’s comments and the harm DOGE has already done to the agency, it’s clear Trump was lying all along about protecting Social Security,” Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said.
The Democratic National Committee’s Tim Hogan added, “Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security. It wasn’t enough to kick millions of people off their health care and take food away from hungry kids. Trump is now coming after American seniors with a ‘backdoor’ scam to take away the benefits they earned. Democrats won’t stand by as Trump screws over working families in order to give more handouts to billionaires.”
Brandon Weathersby, a spokesperson for American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC aligned with Democratic politics, pushed a similar line: “Republicans think if they make the SSA inoperable by firing critical staffers and make it nearly impossible to get the help you need, they can deem it all beyond repair and privatize the entire program, so their billionaire friends can make a fortune off the backs of some of the most vulnerable Americans. ... Scott Bessent just admitted what Trump and Republicans have been hiding all along: Their plan was never to protect and strengthen Social Security; it was to dismantle it, take benefits away from seniors and the working-class, and turn the program into a cash cow for the ultra-rich.”
I have a hunch the public hasn’t heard the last of Bessent’s quote.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Comments