$1,000 That Broke Progressive Hearts
You might have caught the comments from the Treasury Secretary made at the recent Breitbart News Policy event regarding the Trump Administration’s new children’s savings account. The phrase used was, “Back door to privatize Social Security.”
The reaction from Washington was pretty much what you’d expect. There was anger from Democrats, lots of media amplification, and a sort of collective refusal to really engage with what Bessent said.
Tim Hogan from the Democratic National Committee stated, “Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has just revealed the plan. The administration is targeting Social Security for privatization.” He further claimed that Trump was planning a “backdoor” scam aimed at stealing the income earned by American seniors.
The line was echoed almost robotically by various Democrats, with Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA) and Richard Neal (D-MA) adding to the chorus.
Even reporters seemed to get stuck on repeating the same message. This included ProPublica reporters and editors from the Washington Post.
Then, of course, there was the teachers’ union getting in on it too.
Don’t Replace It, Add It
But really, this seems to be a deliberate misinterpretation of Bessent’s comments. The Trump administration’s aim is to supplement Social Security, not to eliminate it. The idea is to enhance the amount of wealth retirees have and improve economic security for Americans.
Let’s do a little math. Under the current plan, every American newborn gets a $1,000 Trump account, which is a tax-deferred savings account meant to grow as the child matures. If it grows at a historical 8% return on the S&P 500, that single deposit could blossom into $148,780 by age 65. If a modest annual contribution of $200 is added until the age of 25, it could reach $204,736. And with employers matching contributions—as some companies like Charter Communications have announced—those accounts could total around $409,472.
That’s more than a lifetime’s worth of Social Security benefits for people in the bottom income quartile. It doesn’t replace Social Security but could, in some ways, make reliance on it less necessary.
Bessent later clarified, saying, “This isn’t a matter of one or the other. The Trump administration is committed to preserving Social Security while ensuring that older Americans have more financial resources.”
Despite this clarification, Democrats and their supporters keep repeating their narrative. They’ve claimed for years that the Trump administration has secret plans to eliminate Social Security, even in the face of facts and many statements from President Trump himself.
It Was Their Idea Once
Interestingly, Democrats are now criticizing a program they almost embraced until yesterday. The concept of child savings accounts got traction a decade ago from economists William Darity and Darrick Hamilton. They viewed it as a progressive initiative to help close the racial wealth gap. Their proposal advocated for government-funded trust accounts for newborns to grow funds meant for education and homeownership.
Later, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) introduced a similar concept called the “American Opportunity Account,” aimed at wealth redistribution. What Bessent and the Trump administration presented wasn’t a form of reparative justice but rather an opportunity for all Americans to prosper together.
This dynamic shows a troubling trend among some public servants—if Trump supports something, they attack it. It seems like some political factions can only see red when the idea is associated with him, as if any potential value is overshadowed by the mere association.
The Golden Age Is Upon Us
Beyond simply countering claims made about his remarks, Democrats seem intent on diverting attention from the larger context of Bessent’s comments. At the same event, he highlighted the shortcomings of the Biden administration, particularly regarding inflation and its impact on working-class Americans.
He contrasted this with the positive economic growth under Trump, noting a rise in real wages and lower inflation rates. According to Bessent, the second quarter saw growth of 3%, suggesting that many economic indicators were more favorable than commonly perceived.
Additionally, Bessent criticized the Federal Reserve for being stuck in old paradigms and suggested they needed to adapt to the changing economic landscape. He suggested that Trump’s tariffs were not raising prices but rather contributing to lower inflation, urging the Fed to adopt a bit of creativity in their approach. He highlighted that the economic boom was already in motion, thanks in part to major legislation that encouraged capital investments.
He also pointed towards a shift in global manufacturing, suggesting that the U.S. was regaining its position in international trade, emphasizing that, “The world is with us now” in terms of collaboration with other economies. This steady growth emphasizes how dependency on outdated economic fundamentals is being supplanted by more robust systems that could genuinely benefit Americans.
Bessent encapsulated this sentiment by saying, “It was about making everyone a stakeholder.”
