In Defense of Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income: Why Indiscriminate Federal Cuts Undermine a Self-Funded System and Harm Claimants

By Pierre A. Louis, Esq.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Understanding Social Security Disability (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
   1. SSDI: A Self-Funded Insurance Program
   2. SSI: A Lifeline for the Most Vulnerable
3. The “150-Year-Old Beneficiaries” Controversy
   1. Elon Musk’s Claims and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
   2. Numident Records vs. Actual Benefit Payments
   3. The 2023 OIG Report
4. Allegations of Fraud and Improper Payments
   1. Deceased Beneficiaries and Data Misinterpretation
   2. The Myth of Rampant Fraud Among Centenarian Recipients
   3. Undocumented Immigrants and Payroll Taxes
5. Why Indiscriminate Cuts Would Hurt Claimants
   1. The Administrative Burden on an Overworked SSA
   2. Delays, Backlogs, and Denials
   3. Impact on Claimants and Their Legal Representation
6. SSDI as a Self-Funded Program: The Retroactive Tax Argument
   1. FICA Contributions and the Insurance Model
   2. Retroactive Taxation Concerns
   3. Relevant Federal Statutes
7. Political Pressure to Cut “Wasteful” Spending
   1. Historical Context of Social Security Budget Cuts
   2. The Role of Congress and the Trust Funds’ Solvency
   3. The Debate on Federal Agency Budgeting
8. Policy Recommendations
   1. Targeted Anti-Fraud Measures
   2. Investment in Modernizing the SSA
   3. Preserving Benefits for Those Who Earned Them
9. Conclusion

1. Introduction

In the ongoing debate about federal spending and deficit reduction, Social Security programs have consistently found themselves in the crosshairs of lawmakers and the executive branch. Today, with the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”)—spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk—looking for “wasteful spending,” Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) once again face scrutiny.

As an attorney representing claimants, I have witnessed firsthand the pivotal role these programs play in preserving dignity and economic stability for millions of Americans who are either unable to work due to a disability (SSDI) or who live with very limited resources (SSI). Despite recurring narratives suggesting rampant fraud or inefficiency, both SSDI and SSI are lifelines for vulnerable Americans, and SSDI in particular is self-funded by those who have worked and paid into the system through payroll taxes.

Recently as reported by CNBC, Elon Musk has levied claims that Social Security continues to pay benefits to individuals well over 100 years old—including some who appear to be “150 years old.” On multiple occasions, Musk has likened Social Security’s beneficiary rolls to a bizarre farce, even going so far as to joke about “vampires collecting Social Security.” These comments follow the revelation that the Social Security Administration’s database (known as Numident) lists millions of individuals over the age of 100 with no recorded date of death. While such records may raise eyebrows, experts stress that they are not proof that billions of dollars in fraudulent benefits are being paid.

This article will explore how proposed indiscriminate budget cuts, fueled by sensationalized claims about “massive fraud,” threaten to damage an already overworked Social Security Administration (SSA), delay or deny benefits to legitimate claimants, and effectively tax workers retroactively by reducing the SSDI benefits that they already funded through years of payroll contributions. Further, I will argue that any push to cut SSDI benefits fundamentally undermines the social contract embedded in the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), which finances the program. Finally, I will highlight relevant federal statutes, including provisions from Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, that underscore the importance of safeguarding these benefits.

2. Understanding Social Security Disability (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

2.1 SSDI: A Self-Funded Insurance Program

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is administered under Title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.). Crucially, SSDI is not a welfare program but an earned benefit that workers pay for through payroll taxes, specifically FICA (the Federal Insurance Contributions Act). Individuals who become disabled and are unable to work may be eligible for SSDI if they have accumulated a sufficient work history and a set number of “credits” from these FICA taxes.

Because of this contributory structure, SSDI is best understood as an insurance program—indeed, it’s even in the name. Workers pay into the system throughout their careers, and in turn, they expect to receive benefits if and when they can no longer work due to a disabling condition. The program’s finances come from dedicated payroll taxes and are held in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, which is distinct from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund.

2.2 SSI: A Lifeline for the Most Vulnerable

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), authorized under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.), is designed for low-income individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled and have not necessarily accumulated a sufficient work history to qualify for SSDI. Unlike SSDI, SSI is funded by general tax revenues, not the payroll tax. Its beneficiaries often have minimal or no other sources of income, making SSI essential for basic needs like food and shelter.

Cutting funding or imposing additional administrative burdens on SSI disproportionately harms the most vulnerable Americans—those who might otherwise be unable to meet even the simplest cost of living expenses.

3. The “150-Year-Old Beneficiaries” Controversy

3.1 Elon Musk’s Claims and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Elon Musk, now leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has made headlines with his unconventional approach to cutting “wasteful” spending. During a CNN interview on February 11, 2025, Musk claimed a “cursory examination” of Social Security revealed individuals supposedly “150 years old” receiving benefits. He later posted on the social media platform X—formerly Twitter—“Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security.”

These statements, while eye-catching, fail to acknowledge the actual structure of the Social Security database or the rigorous checks the SSA routinely employs to verify living beneficiaries.

3.2 Numident Records vs. Actual Benefit Payments

The Numident (short for “Numerical Identification”) is the SSA’s central database that stores personally identifiable information—including Social Security numbers (SSNs), birth dates, and death information—for every individual issued a Social Security number. Importantly, Numident is not the system that processes and pays actual Social Security benefits. Discrepancies in Numident’s records—such as lack of a recorded death date—do not necessarily correlate to real benefit payments going to ineligible individuals.

3.3 The 2023 OIG Report

A 2023 report by the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analyzed Numident records for individuals aged 100 or older. The OIG found approximately 18.9 million SSN holders born in 1920 or earlier with no date of death on file. However, this does not mean all 18.9 million are actively receiving benefits. In fact, census estimates suggest fewer than 90,000 people in the U.S. are 100 years old or older.

The OIG report warned that incomplete death information within Numident could create vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, the inspector general’s office made it clear that the payment records used to administer monthly checks are separate from—and more accurate than—the raw data in Numident.

4. Allegations of Fraud and Improper Payments

4.1 Deceased Beneficiaries and Data Misinterpretation

When confronted about Musk’s 150-year-old beneficiary claim, experts pointed out that the presence of extremely old individuals in Numident can arise from a variety of factors—ranging from poor recordkeeping to the fact that many deaths go unreported, especially when they occurred decades ago and the individuals in question were never receiving benefits to begin with.

A White House statement, provided by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, referenced an investigation indicating that Social Security made about $71.8 billion in improper payments out of almost $8.6 trillion in benefits paid between fiscal years 2015 to 2022. While this is a significant figure, it represents a small fraction of total outlays. Moreover, those improper payments include both underpayments (which harm beneficiaries) and overpayments (which harm the program’s finances). Fraud related to deceased beneficiaries is just one subset of these improper payments, many of which are recouped through SSA’s overpayment recovery processes.

4.2 The Myth of Rampant Fraud Among Centenarian Recipients

Statistically, the idea that large numbers of 100-year-old-plus beneficiaries are raking in fraudulent payments lacks credible support. The SSA has long had protocols to verify the continued eligibility of older recipients, particularly those who exceed 100 years of age and have not recently used Medicare services (a common indication of being alive). Cases of discovered fraud in this category do exist but are relatively rare compared to the total beneficiary population.

4.3 Undocumented Immigrants and Payroll Taxes

Another factor fueling suspicions of “fraud” arises when Social Security numbers assigned to centenarians appear on active W-2s or job applications. In many instances, these SSNs are used by undocumented workers who, in fact, pay into the system but will never claim benefits. This paradox leads to a net gain for Social Security’s trust funds because these undocumented workers generate additional payroll tax revenues without drawing upon them later. According to Alex Nowrasteh from the Cato Institute, in tax years 2016 to 2020, employers and individuals reported about $8.5 billion in wages, tips, and self-employment income linked to 139,211 SSNs attributed to individuals ages 100 and older. While these wage earners obviously are not 100-year-old employees, their contributions through payroll taxes strengthen Social Security’s finances rather than deplete them.

5. Why Indiscriminate Cuts Would Hurt Claimants

5.1 The Administrative Burden on an Overworked SSA

The Social Security Administration is already underfunded and understaffed, facing continuous pressure to do more with less. Budget cuts, in the name of reducing government spending, often land with a disproportionate effect on SSA’s ability to process claims, conduct hearings, and administer payments accurately. When staff are overwhelmed, it becomes harder for them to address fraudulent claims effectively. Indeed, targeted anti-fraud measures require funding for investigators, data analysis tools, and enhanced technology.

Indiscriminate cuts—particularly those that slash administrative budgets—threaten to undermine the very oversight that critics of “wasteful spending” claim to be advocating for.

5.2 Delays, Backlogs, and Denials

Chronic underfunding has historically produced extensive delays in the adjudication of disability claims. At one point, the backlog for Social Security Disability hearings had many claimants waiting over a year (sometimes closer to two years) for a final decision. For individuals who are disabled, these lengthy waits can be devastating—leading to worsened health, depletion of personal savings, and potential homelessness.

Cutting budgets further, as DOGE appears poised to do, could exacerbate this already dire situation. Fewer staff means slower response times, increased backlogs, and potentially more mistaken denials. In turn, valid claimants—people genuinely unable to work because of severe disabilities—may find themselves in a legal limbo, needing representation yet facing a system unable to respond efficiently.

5.3 Impact on Claimants and Their Legal Representation

From my vantage point as an attorney representing SSDI and SSI claimants, these federal budget cuts create substantial hurdles:

• Longer Waits for Hearings: Indiscriminate cuts hamstring the Office of Hearings Operations, increasing the time it takes for clients to receive a final decision.
• Reduced Access to Evidence: Overworked SSA staff may not update or process medical evidence promptly, affecting a claimant’s right to a fair review of their case.
• Stress and Deterrence: Claimants with legitimate cases may be intimidated by the prospect of a long, uphill battle. This can deter some from pursuing their rightful benefits.

All these factors compound the stress on claimants—many of whom are already facing debilitating physical or mental health conditions.

6. SSDI as a Self-Funded Program: The Retroactive Tax Argument

6.1 FICA Contributions and the Insurance Model

When one pays into the Social Security system, specifically for SSDI, they are making insurance premium payments in the form of payroll taxes. An individual’s work record and the corresponding FICA contributions earn them “quarters of coverage,” which ultimately determine their eligibility for SSDI. Thus, to reduce or cut SSDI benefits after a claimant has spent years—or even decades—contributing to the system is to violate the fundamental insurance contract they entered into with the federal government.

6.2 Retroactive Taxation Concerns

Moreover, cutting SSDI benefits can be analogized to imposing a retroactive tax. Why? Because a portion of every paycheck included SSDI insurance premiums. Those premiums were paid with the understanding that if the worker became disabled, they would be able to draw on the benefit. Reneging on that promise is akin to saying, “We collected your money for insurance, but we’re reducing the payout after the fact.”

Legally and ethically, such a move erodes trust in public institutions and the principle that a deal is a deal—particularly when it comes to essential safety net programs. The Social Security Act’s provisions in 42 U.S.C. § 423 (SSDI) underscore that these benefits are earned entitlements rather than discretionary handouts.

6.3 Relevant Federal Statutes

Several sections of the Social Security Act are relevant here:

• 42 U.S.C. § 401: Establishes the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
• 42 U.S.C. § 423: Outlines the eligibility criteria and payment requirements for SSDI.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1381: Establishes the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to provide benefits to aged, blind, or disabled individuals with minimal resources.
• 42 U.S.C. § 1383: Provides procedural rules for the administration of SSI, including how payments are handled and obligations for reporting changes that may affect eligibility.

From a purely legal standpoint, these statutes collectively set forth that Social Security programs operate with specific financing mechanisms and eligibility rules. Any abrupt and sweeping cuts driven by unverified claims of fraud disregard the legal architecture Congress enacted to protect America’s workers, retirees, and those in need.

7. Political Pressure to Cut “Wasteful” Spending

7.1 Historical Context of Social Security Budget Cuts

Efforts to reduce Social Security’s administrative budget are not new. Over the past two decades, the SSA’s workforce has shrunk even as its beneficiary rolls have grown. The result: fewer employees are responsible for serving more—and increasingly complex—claims. This mismatch in resources has long-term repercussions, including slowing down updates to technology and the modernization of the claim-processing system.

7.2 The Role of Congress and the Trust Funds’ Solvency

Social Security’s trust funds—one dedicated to retirement and survivors benefits (OASI) and another to disability (DI)—face long-term shortfalls if no legislative action is taken. According to the most recent projections from the Social Security Trustees (cited in 2024 for the year 2035), the combined trust funds may become unable to pay full benefits if Congress fails to act.

However, cutting SSDI benefits is not the only—or even the best—solution. Increasing the cap on taxable income, redirecting certain revenues, or instituting modest tax adjustments could stave off insolvency. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Americans value Social Security highly, recognizing it as a bedrock of retirement and disability security.

7.3 The Debate on Federal Agency Budgeting

Under the current climate, DOGE and Elon Musk have voiced intentions to apply “across-the-board” agency cuts to rein in federal spending. Yet, Social Security is not like other government programs. Its retirement and disability benefits are financed largely through dedicated payroll taxes, making it a self-sustaining enterprise for the most part. Lumping SSDI or SSI in with programs funded primarily by discretionary spending does a disservice to the structural integrity of Social Security. Furthermore, proposals to “modernize” by slashing administrative budgets may only complicate the agency’s ability to detect and eliminate actual fraud.

8. Policy Recommendations

Rather than slashing budgets or sowing distrust through unsubstantiated claims about 150-year-old beneficiaries, policymakers should consider more prudent approaches:

8.1 Targeted Anti-Fraud Measures

• Better Data Sharing and Verification: Strengthen data-sharing agreements between SSA and state agencies to ensure prompt reporting of deaths.
• Focused Investigations: Expand the capacity of the Office of the Inspector General to investigate fraudulent claims and overpayment scenarios. Targeted strategies are more effective than broad-based cuts that weaken the entire administration.
• Proactive Outreach to the Elderly: Continue the SSA’s practice of contacting centenarian beneficiaries to confirm their status, ensuring that records are accurate.

8.2 Investment in Modernizing the SSA

• Upgraded Technology: Replace outdated computer systems to track wage earnings and death records more reliably. This modernization will reduce improper payments and speed up claims processing.
• Enhanced Customer Service: Provide SSA field offices with enough staff and resources to manage appointments, answer calls promptly, and offer guidance to applicants.

8.3 Preserving Benefits for Those Who Earned Them

• Respecting the Insurance Principle: Recognize that SSDI is funded by workers over many years. Proposed cuts to SSDI equate to changing the rules after premiums have been paid, an approach that undermines public trust.
• Protecting the Vulnerable: SSI recipients often have minimal alternative means of support; cuts to that program translate directly into increased poverty and homelessness, especially among the elderly and disabled.

9. Conclusion

Federal efforts to root out fraud and waste are commendable, but they must be proportionate and informed by factual data rather than sensational claims. Elon Musk’s remarks about alleged 150-year-old beneficiaries, alongside jokes about “vampires collecting Social Security,” capture headlines but misrepresent how the Social Security Administration actually operates. Those remarks conflate the presence of outdated or missing records in Numident with active benefit payments.

Moreover, attributing the existence of “ancient beneficiaries” to massive fraud ignores the OIG’s findings that the SSA has long identified and investigated potential cases of improper payments among centenarians. Similarly, concerns about undocumented immigrants using SSNs incorrectly imply a net loss to the system; in reality, many undocumented workers pay into Social Security without ever drawing on these benefits, boosting the trust funds overall.

From my position as an SSDI and SSI lawyer, the biggest danger is that indiscriminate budget cuts—particularly those championed by the Department of Government Efficiency—will exacerbate an already overworked and under-resourced SSA. This, in turn, means longer wait times, potentially fewer protections against actual fraud, and undue hardship for legitimate claimants who paid into the system or who rely on SSI for basic survival.

On a fundamental level, cutting SSDI benefits also raises concerns of a retroactive tax, as these benefits are financed by a worker’s own contributions over time. The principle at stake is clear: once you pay for insurance, you have a right to the coverage promised under that agreement. The Social Security Act—particularly 42 U.S.C. §§ 401, 423, 1381, and 1383—lays out the legal framework that ensures Americans can count on receiving their earned or much-needed benefits without undue interference or arbitrary reductions.

The path forward should involve targeted, data-driven measures to catch and prevent fraud, coupled with robust funding and modernization efforts that enable the SSA to serve recipients efficiently and effectively. Rather than imposing sweeping cuts under the pretense of eliminating “vampires,” policymakers must uphold Social Security’s integrity as a self-funded program and shield vulnerable populations from needless harm. By respecting the insurance principle at the core of SSDI, and by ensuring SSI continues to provide for those most in need, we honor the spirit and letter of the Social Security Act.

In short, preserving the security of disability and retirement benefits is not only a moral imperative but also a legal one—backed by statutory mandates and funded by the collective contributions of American workers. Painting Social Security with the broad brush of “wasteful government spending” ignores its unique structure and the indispensable role it fulfills. Yes, every federal program deserves scrutiny, and fraud detection must remain a priority; but misguided efforts to slash Social Security risk punishing honest claimants, undermining worker trust, and ultimately weakening one of the most successful social insurance programs in U.S. history.