I approve of Trump’s misinformation — this time
Serving a higher good
Every winter whomever is deemed president addresses the nation (in what would be called the State of the Union speech were it not her or his first of that magnitude since inauguration). Like other presidents, Trump made the most of his chance to promote family, allies and others who provided or deserved prime publicity. As always, each aisle of Congress was as visually and auditorily aroused as any group of diverse citizens watching (if not more divisive).
Near the beginning, Trump promoted his crusade against real or imagined waste by asserting that centenarians of assorted age groups — several of which we may assume are believed by many to boast a worldwide population of zero — were marked as alive in the computer. Since sensationalism is not my goal despite the lofty standards of my claim, I trust I have opened with sufficient tact for those of all political persuasions — or at least the nominally rational among them.
I could feel and hear his capitol audience boo the waste in sympathy with his goals, but it was easy to identify with scoffers as he claimed that millions in their 120s and 130s were collecting checks after shuffling off this mortal coil. If you’re sensing despite how little you know me that I’m not of an organized or esoteric religion that (even indirectly) exhorts any blind belief in declared miracles or any struggle between that and what some (perhaps lazily) refer to as common sense, you are correct. The idea that people — especially in anything remotely approaching sizable numbers — are living decades into the triple-digit range — I would reject as readily as anyone whom you would most likely consider rational, even if I feel no need to display the cliche of scorn in the process.
So why am I writing? Because the president’s words kept haunting me, and I didn’t know why.
My lack of ready belief in them didn’t keep me from craving a fact-check on the matter. What feels like naivete to me myself at other times feels like a proud conviction (though of hope more than belief) to find honesty in others. just in a youthful yearning for security when I took pride in not being cynical, but something…deeper (a theme through this article).
No doubt at least part of this stems from when I was very young, when safety to me was rooted in avoidance of the dishonest and establishing my intellect (for which misleading cleverness might substitute as I matured.) But even knowing there was no credible way such outlandish claims could be substantiated, it felt good to consider them as being motivated by something less cynical that a lazier mind could conclude.
Feeling good is an understatement in that one might expect to hear that from a Pollyanna or worse; it felt like I was remembering something of great importance, even though I didn’t realize it yet. And despite any pessimism below. I can’t express how grateful I am that my final conclusion was something other than the “obvious truth” than a sensible viewer who wasn’t a partisan for Trump would readily issue. (I’m not talking about those who believe in miraculous lifespans, but those accused of being so far gone for Trump they’d readily believe some lucky millions — or their families — received such benefits.)
I don’t mean to imply that I hold everyone as innocent-until-proven-guilty in the rigid, legalistic sense; some people — and their reputations. or philosophies, or associates— are easier or more satisfying to give the benefit of the doubt to, and some kinds of rationalization are more suspicious to me than others. But I feel like a man of principle in that my commitment to assuming one’s truth is not casually forgotten.
When I ventured in the direction of clarity, I was not at all surprised to read an uncomplimentary verdict. While any service provided to hundreds of millions can be expected to run imperfectly in the best of circumstances, I hope all but a statistically insignificant number of readers would deem it partisan courtesy on my part to declare agreement here.
But the reason for such was far graver than government waste…
The site I happened to grab in my search was NBC News. According to it, Trump claimed that over 20 million centenarians were receiving checks (when you added his allegations for each decade of age together), but it points out that the total per Social Security’s online records was 89,106 in December — about what one would expect given our population. However, the fact-check reported that in 2023 the Social Security Administration Inspector General found that 18.9 million undead centenarians (and I don’t mean those without reflections who could only die via a stake in their heart) were listed in the database but “almost none” receive payments.
I’m seriously not trying to nitpick errors in a program that tracks contributions and payments involving a population of hundreds of millions (though there are limits to what federal veracities I can vouch for). I’ll leave it to others to assert that the 0.84% of improper payments from 2015 through 2022 of a program of such magnitude could be reasonably improved or that a better rate could be obtained via privatization. This was also reported by the SSA IG that year as mostly being overpayments (rather than ineligible ones).
I’m far more concerned about the news fit to print for the hundreds of millions. The claim by Trump was broadcast by Elon Musk on February 11. NBC’s explanation of the hyperbole was limited to one short paragraph:
“Inspectors general at the agency have repeatedly identified the issue, but the Social Security Administration has argued that updating old records is costly and unnecessary.”
Politifact had a far more comprehensive description of the problems, which included missing birthdates (which first worlders are prone to take for granted), political blocks to incentives to conserve, and personnel budgeting. But for me it was enough that a major news organization saw no point in advising a public whose votes it exhorted. Whether we heard Trump’s case from an opportunist or from those who can be more readily seen around the spectrum as an enemy of America, why wasn’t this more widely known before?
What else might we become complacent about taking shrewdness for granted? Who might see how they might benefit as a result?
While some might readily fault Trump and Musk for this sensationalism, it seems to me the far greater fault lies with those in government who see no reason, in this round-the-clock news and tech-heavy age, for informing voters and taxpayers about what may not be well-known database and bureaucratic history of what originated as far more primitive technology.
Now I want to address another possible problem bubbling beneath the surface. Some will think, to put it simply, that I’m just causing trouble by suggesting something more, but it occurs to me that some who see any value in this seldom-discussed point will have other reasons for opposing Trump, and significant cognitive dissonance may be the result should I be deemed a Trump fan in the process of defending him here. I have nothing to add beyond acknowledging it…except to say that there is talk in many circles, especially in recent generations, about intuition. This might apply more than ever should anyone encounter reasons to suspect a lack of truth for any reason, in any situation.
If it’s hopeless to expect to trim fluff from a surfeit of talking heads, can we start cleaning up litter by saying what needs to be said? Maybe Trump did so more effectively by calling attention to this issue with outrage if it led to this (whatever his original intention).
