Most of my posts are about solving problems. And SSA does have problems—that’s not my opinion; their own internal audits say so, and the GAO backs it up. I’m not making this up or pulling it from AI.

I’m using SSA as an example because DOGE and the White House are fixated on it, which makes it a useful case to contrast what good policy looks like versus what’s happening now.

That doesn’t mean SSA is some bloated or corrupt agency—it’s actually a bad target if your goal is to cut waste. They have a low loss rate and relatively low admin costs. If you wanted to save real money, you’d look at Medicare, which has a long history of fraud, low detection rates, and poor recovery. But I’m not going there right now—I’m sticking with SSA because it illustrates the point.

For me, policy isn’t just something you implement—it’s something you explain to voters. Good policy has three parts:

– A problem to solve or an opportunity to seize,

– One or more goals, and

– An approach to get there.

In SSA’s case, the key problem is service delays. The goals, in order, are:

– Do no harm,

– Reduce delays,

– Lower admin costs.

That’s it. And when I look at any proposal, I don’t need every detail—just enough to see if there’s a plan, and if it has a realistic shot at working without causing more harm than good.

As a voter, that’s the lens I try to use.

– Does the proposal clearly identify a real problem?

– Does it set goals that reflect both urgency and care?

– Is the approach grounded in how real systems work, not just how someone wishes they worked?

If the answers are vague, if the harm seems dismissed, or if the path forward sounds like magic—then that’s not a plan. That’s a slogan.

SSA’s not perfect, but what’s happening now isn’t about fixing it—it just might be about using it as a political stage. And if the plan to “fix” it doesn’t survive basic scrutiny, we should be asking: what’s the real objective—and who ends up paying for it?