Dan Turner defends past tweet calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme amid heated House committee exchange.

Turner Responds After Confrontation by Rep. Garcia

A sharp exchange erupted during a House oversight subcommittee hearing this week when Rep. Robert Garcia of California attempted to discredit witness Dan Turner over a resurfaced tweet criticizing Social Security. Garcia, a Democrat, held up a poster of Turner’s post describing the program as a "government-sponsored Ponzi scheme" and questioned the credibility of Turner's testimony on federal tax spending.

The hearing, part of a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) review on federal allocations to nonprofits, quickly shifted focus after Garcia cited the tweet. He accused Turner, CEO of Power the Future, of undermining a foundational support system for millions of Americans. "A Ponzi scheme—and that's the person we should be taking advice from here today?" Garcia remarked. He noted that Social Security lifts 22 million people out of poverty, including over 16 million seniors and nearly 1 million children.

Turner, contacted after the hearing, stood by his remarks. "Rep Garcia does not know the definition of Ponzi scheme," he said. "Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi, demanding more and more people at the bottom pay in to fund the people at the top. The system will default. That should worry him more than my social media feed."

He criticized the government for forcing individuals to pay into a system that he believes will not deliver a meaningful return. Turner also cited his father’s experience with the program, stating he received only a fraction of what he contributed before his death. "That’s not just a Ponzi scheme; it’s government greed," he argued.

Support for Structural Criticism of Social Security

Turner's view found reinforcement from James Agresti, president of the research institute Just Facts. Agresti explained that the current structure of Social Security fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme because it relies on payments from current workers to fund current retirees. “It doesn’t take our money and save it for us,” Agresti said. “The vast bulk of it goes immediately out the door.”

He noted that the Social Security trust fund, which holds temporary surpluses, currently has only enough funds to sustain two years of operations. While it pays interest above inflation, Agresti emphasized that the real issue is systemic—not mismanagement or looting.

Garcia and other Democrats have long opposed proposed reforms or cuts to Social Security, especially those targeting administrative costs. Agresti pointed out that Social Security’s annual administrative overhead is $6.7 billion—enough to cover the average benefits of over 300,000 retirees.

Critics of the program, including Turner, argue that trimming such expenses could extend the program’s viability. Turner warned that failure to confront the financial trajectory of Social Security poses a larger risk. “Every single study shows Social Security going completely bankrupt in the next few years,” he said. “Garcia and others know the iceberg is ahead, but rather than turn the ship, they’re yelling at the iceberg about the senior citizens onboard.”

The hearing underscored the deep ideological divide over the future of Social Security. As Democrats defend the program's role in combating poverty, critics continue to demand structural reform, warning that failure to act could imperil future generations.