Edhat Staff
More than 200 protesters gathered outside the Social Security Administration (SSA) office in downtown Santa Barbara on Wednesday to oppose proposed federal changes they believe jeopardize the future of Social Security services.
This protest was part of a nationwide movement, Hands Off Our Social Security, that included over 5 million people in at least 25 states.
Locally this protest was organized by Indivisible Santa Barbara in front of the SSA field office at 122 W. Figueroa St. to voice concerns over the Trump administration’s plans to downsize the department.
During the rally, U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara) delivering a pointed message to the SSA and helped present a 35-page letter to the local office, addressed to Acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek, urging the agency to halt plans to close offices and implement staffing reductions.
“Social Security is your money. It’s our money,” Rep. Carbajal told the crowd. “Over 150 individuals on the Central Coast rely on their Social Security monthly checks for Medicaid.”
Carbajal condemned the administration’s proposed downsizing, which includes a 12% workforce reduction—approximately 7,000 jobs—and the closure of six out of 10 regional offices nationwide. These measures were announced by the Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire Elon Musk, as part of efforts to streamline operations.
“I was in Santa Barbara today to say loud and clear: Hands off Social Security. On the Central Coast, close to 150,000 people depend on Social Security—and we won’t let Trump gut it for another billionaire tax break. We must fight back. We must stand united. We must protect what’s ours,” said Rep. Carbajal on social media.
Protesters expressed heightened concerns over not only potential cuts to Social Security benefits but also reduced access to services and increased job insecurity for federal employees.
A follow-up rally is planned for Thursday, May 1, at the Sunken Garden at the County Courthouse in downtown Santa Barbara.
Some idiots who thrive in the con bubble think that government expenses have decreased. Take a look at the stats for the first 100 days.
The cost of layoffs — especially chainsaw, illegal ones. So damn efficient…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doge-cuts-cost-135-billion-analysis-elon-musk-department-of-government-efficiency/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/us/politics/musk-cuts.html
What Elon Musk Didn’t Budget For: Firing Workers Costs Money, Too
An expert on the federal work force estimates that the speed and chaos of Mr. Musk’s cuts to the bureaucracy will cost taxpayers $135 billion this fiscal year.
“President Trump and Elon Musk promised taxpayers big savings, maybe even a “DOGE dividend” check in their mailboxes, when the Department of Government Efficiency was let loose on the federal government. Now, as he prepares to step back from his presidential assignment to cut bureaucratic fat, Mr. Musk has said without providing details that DOGE is likely to save taxpayers only $150 billion.
That is about 15 percent of the $1 trillion he pledged to save, less than 8 percent of the $2 trillion in savings he had originally promised and a fraction of the nearly $7 trillion the federal government spent in the 2024 fiscal year.
The errors and obfuscations underlying DOGE’s claims of savings are well documented. Less known are the costs Mr. Musk incurred by taking what Mr. Trump called a “hatchet” to government and the resulting firings, agency lockouts and building seizures that mostly wound up in court.
The Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that studies the federal work force, has used budget figures to produce a rough estimate that firings, re-hirings, lost productivity and paid leave of thousands of workers will cost upward of $135 billion this fiscal year. At the Internal Revenue Service, a DOGE-driven exodus of 22,000 employees would cost about $8.5 billion in revenue in 2026 alone, according to figures from the Budget Lab at Yale University. The total number of departures is expected to be as many as 32,000.
Neither of these estimates includes the cost to taxpayers of defending DOGE’s moves in court. Of about 200 lawsuits and appeals related to Mr. Trump’s agenda, at least 30 implicate the department.
“Not only is Musk vastly overinflating the money he has saved, he is not accounting for the exponentially larger waste that he is creating,” said Max Stier, the chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service. “He’s inflicted these costs on the American people, who will pay them for many years to come.”
Mr. Stier and other experts on the federal work force said it did not have to be this way. Federal law and previous government shutdowns offered Mr. Musk a legal playbook for reducing the federal work force, a goal that most Americans support. But Mr. Musk chose similar lightning-speed, blunt-force methods he used to drastically cut Twitter’s work force after he acquired the company in 2022.
“The law is clear,” said Jeri Buchholz, who over three decades in public service handled hiring and firing at seven federal agencies, including NASA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. “They can do all the things they are currently doing, but they can’t do them the way they’re doing them. They can either start over and do it right, or they can be in court for forever.”
Harrison W. Fields, a White House spokesman, defended DOGE’s cuts and called the $150 billion that the administration had saved “monumental and historic.”
“It’s important to realize that doing nothing has a cost, too, and these so-called experts and groups are conveniently absent when looking at the costs of doing nothing,” he said.
On the I.R.S., he said, “Every single cut has been done to make the government more efficient and not to be a burden to the American people or cut any critical resources or programs they rely on.”
Based on the latest available information, the DOGE cuts have targeted at least 12 percent of the 2.4 million civilian employees in the federal work force. But a wide gap exists between DOGE’s planned cuts and the number of people who actually leave.
Buyouts and firings initially trimmed about 100,000 workers — thousands fewer people than those who typically retire in a year, according to Office of Personnel Management figures. At least one-quarter of those 100,000 workers have been rehired at full pay, most after judges ruled that their firings were illegal and some after Mr. Musk said DOGE had “accidentally” sacked workers safeguarding nuclear weapons, ensuring aviation safety and combating bird flu and Ebola.
When judges ordered that the workers be hired back, the government put them on paid leave, meaning taxpayers would foot the cost of rehiring them, plus the salaries they collected while staying home.
Layoffs of 10,000 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services wiped out the entire team at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention combating H.I.V. among mothers and children around the world. In an interview, two public health physicians said they were caught off guard because the team’s work always had bipartisan support. They were facing termination on June 2 and said they wanted to return to work but did not know to whom to make their case.
Mr. Musk’s methods have cast a pall over the latest effort by an American president to trim the federal bureaucracy, as most Americans say they want. In congressional town halls and interviews, even Trump voters have said they are tired of Mr. Musk’s bloodletting. In a poll released this month, 58 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved of how Mr. Musk was handling DOGE’s work, and 60 percent disapproved of Mr. Musk himself.
A week after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the Office of Personnel Management sent a now infamous email to more than two million federal workers with the subject line “Fork in the Road.” They were told they could either resign and be paid through September or risk being sacked down the road.
The email ignited anger and confusion over whether DOGE had the legal authority to pay workers through September. Federal employee unions sued, but a judge allowed the program to go forward. About 75,000 people left, or about three percent. If the administration does not renege on its offer, it will be paying their salaries into the fall.
The mass buyout did not favor highly rated performers nor distinguish crucial jobs from nonessential ones, practices that guided furloughs during past government shutdowns. Consequently, the administration wound up trying to reverse an exodus of people in vital roles.
“We will make mistakes,” Mr. Musk told cabinet members in February. After he boasted of feeding the United States Agency for International Development “into the wood chipper,” a move a judge later found violated the Constitution, Mr. Musk discovered that “one of the things we accidentally canceled very briefly was Ebola prevention.” But his claim to have swiftly repaired the damage was inaccurate.
Separately, a New York Times investigation into cuts to the National Nuclear Security Administration illustrates the effect of the buyouts on efforts to safeguard and modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons. Of more than 130 people who were fired or accepted DOGE’s invitation to quit, at least 27 were engineers, 13 were program or project analysts, 12 were program or project managers, and five were physicists or scientists.
Four of these employees were specialists handling the secure transport of nuclear materials, and a half dozen worked in the agency unit that builds reactors for nuclear submarines.
“Those are such hard jobs to fill, because people could make as much or more money working for the plant or laboratory itself,” said Jill Hruby, who led the National Nuclear Security Administration during the Biden administration.
Several people on the nuclear safety team found new jobs with the government contractors they once supervised. Across government, a disproportionate number of professionals in high demand by the private sector have quit, according to Mr. Stier.
“There are plenty of people who are best in class who are sticking it out because they’re so purpose-driven,” he said. “But it’s easier for someone who has options to say, ‘This is crazy, I’m not going to do this anymore,’ and go someplace else.”
‘Money Being Deliberately Wasted’
In mid-February, the Office of Personnel Management targeted all 220,000 of the federal government’s probationary employees, who are new or newly promoted professionals serving a one- to two-year trial period with fewer worker protections. They included a cadre of younger, tech-savvy professionals hired at great expense to replace a wave of baby boomer retirees. Hiring and training them cost about $10,000 for a clerical worker to more than $1 million for an elite spy.
“This is the equivalent of a major-league baseball franchise firing all of their minor-league players,” said Kevin Carroll, a former C.I.A. officer and lawyer who represents some of the fired workers. “It’s a huge amount of money being deliberately wasted.”
About 24,000 probationary employees across nearly 20 agencies had been fired by March 13, when a federal judge in Maryland ruled that the cuts were illegal and ordered the agencies to rehire the workers, but the government appealed and the legal wrangling continues. By law, probationary employees can only be fired for cause, typically for poor performance, Judge James K. Bredar of the Federal District Court in Maryland said in a lengthy ruling.
He ordered the government to recall the fired workers, including 7,600 from the Treasury Department, 5,700 at the Agriculture Department and more than 3,200 at the Department of Health and Human Services, according to court filings. But the administration instead put them on paid leave, where they collect annual salaries averaging $106,000 while waiting in limbo.
For each probationary worker DOGE idled, the government lost thousands of dollars it spent on recruitment, hiring incentives, security clearances and training, an investment normally recouped over years of service. In one case, a fired probationary employee with the Department of Health and Human Services received a pay raise after she was reinstated and put on paid leave.
The administration cut about 400 probationary workers at the Federal Aviation Administration after multiple plane crashes, including one in Washington in January that killed 67 people. The layoffs included maintenance mechanics and aviation safety assistants.
The C.I.A. confirmed last month that some officers hired in the past two years had been summoned to a location away from the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va., and asked to surrender their credentials to security personnel. About 80 officers were let go.
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said it cost $400,000 to get a C.I.A. recruit through the security clearance process and specialized training.
Inflicting Pain
The theatrics around the firings, including an appearance by Mr. Musk at a conservative political convention waving a chain saw, suggest they are also about inflicting pain on a bureaucracy Mr. Trump perceives as a subversive “deep state.”
That was a goal for federal employees set by Russell T. Vought, who now leads the Office of Management and Budget. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains,” Mr. Vought told a conservative gathering in 2023.
Ms. Buchholz and Mr. Stier emphasize that the government is indeed inefficient and needs reform. But by “gleefully torturing people,” Ms. Buchholz said, DOGE has hurt the government’s ability to recruit young, talented workers to lead a modernization.
“This country historically has had an independent public service that attracts people focused on service to Americans,” Ms. Buchholz said. “But this administration values the kind of service you get from political appointees, who serve at the president’s pleasure.”
Too bad Musk elbowed out Ramaswamy.
Ramaswamy’s habit of not even showing up would have been much more efficient.
Elon lies at DOGE, as he does as we’ve all seen with Tesla hype:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4j33klz33o
“A joke: Despite Doge, gov. spending under Trump vs Biden UP 154B this year, WSJ reports”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/joke-despite-doge-gov-spending-022501388.html
Keep up the fight!
Anon – People “oppose proposed federal changes they believe jeopardize the future of Social Security services – they believe jeopardize the future of Social Security services.” How is this going to reduce, eliminate or change benefit these people have earned? I read nothing and have not learned of anything that confirms changes will eliminate money that is due is received.
You haven’t been paying attention, except to your fantasy bubble.
Removing the income cap for contributions is the proper solution.
The current con scheme is to funnel the money to the oligarchs by privatizing the system.
Relevant quote from one of the sources below:
“The authors behind Project 2025 have endorsed an increase to the full retirement age from 67 to 69. Doing so would cut benefits for nearly three-quarters of Americans and threaten low- and moderate-income workers—particularly women, who live longer and must draw on their retirement savings for a longer period—with economic insecurity once they leave the workforce.”
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/house-republican-agendas-and-project-2025-would-increase-poverty-and
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/raising-the-retirement-age-for-social-security-would-cut-benefits-by-thousands-of-dollars-each-year/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/frequently-asked-questions-about-project-2025/
looking to make headlines while gaslighting the public.
You’re right! That’s exactly what the orange moron does!
OOPS – how is this gaslighting?
What’s wrong with downsizing expenditures on staff and offices? I don’t t see any mention of decreasing benefits.
Because you don’t read.
I thought Democrats were calling for radical change.
Nope, just want racists, bigots and fascists gone from our society.
money for the current recipients comes from the current workforce.
As it always has. Your point? It’s still YOUR money that you have contributed (forced savings, as it were) throughout your working life. It is NOT welfare or any other kind of entitlement. It is YOUR money.
Yup, but the income cap on deductions for SS gives the rich a free ride.
More fear-mongering… The sky is falling!
Keep that head in the sandy con bubble!
The lesson to be learned here is to not rely heavily on SS money during retirement. Making the right financial decisions during our work years is extremely important. For most people, that’s means save/save/save, invest appropriately for your age, and stop spending on things that you don’t really need. Paying for food and drink outside the home should be infrequent….unless you can afford it. A $4 coffee five days a week times 52 weeks over ten years is $10,400 (before any tips!) Don’t overlook investing in yourself with continued education as a way to obtain higher-paying jobs. My personal plan is to not count on SS funds at all. If money is available to me upon retirement, I will view those dollars as “fun” money or pocket change. Not everyone can or will follow the path that I am taking, but if enjoying your retirement includes extended vacations, restaurants, and so on, then time to tighten up the wallet.
Absolutely. We see so many folks outspending their incomes long-term. New cars, car washes every week, new phones, clothes…you name it. Take a look at your neighborhood Starbucks. You better be thinking how much you’re losing long term of you buy 4-5 dollar coffees regularly. Most folks don’t have a clue. Save and plan financially. Don’t be expecting the federal government to support you fully when you get old. It’s getting less and less likely.
Yeah, that money is being rerouted to the oligarchs.
BASIC – ” You better be thinking how much you’re losing long term of you buy 4-5 dollar coffees regularly….Save and plan financially. Don’t be expecting the federal government to support you fully when you get old.”
LOL! BASIC doesn’t know how social security works. Jeezus, dude. Pick up a book or something.
Keep whining and if you want, outspending your means. Social security may be gone for you already. Not sure what YOU don’t understand. It ain’t guaranteed. “A book” on social security, you say? That’s a laugh. Keep them blinders on as long as you want to. No one will be bailing you out.
Sacjon: No reason to feel intimidated or “lose it” because someone might not know something about that which you are familiar with and/or fully comprehend. Intimidated might not be the right word, but even the mundane turns into the end of the world. Since you know about these things, It would be beneficial to let folks know that they should set up their “my Social Security” (www.ssa.gov) account sooner than later. Once you set up your account, you can review details about YOUR specific retirement dates and potential SS benefits….including an estimated amount you might receive.
Let it go and be a beacon of positivity. See you at Alameda Park in an hour or so….take a free MTD bus.
Not “losing it” at all BEES. What a bizarre take on that.
And yeah, I’ll be there in a bit! Happy Earth Day!
Bend those Knees! It makes it easier to keep your head in the sand.
Anon: Been a while, eh?
Lately, you specialize in senseless rejoinders.
Not that you original comments contain much of substance, simply advocating for complacency.
“intimidated and losing it”. Projection much?