Font Size

From the category archives: Presidential Politics

The Cruz/Fiorina Plan for Social Security and Medicare

Here’s a “Throwback Thursday” reminder of what a Cruz/Fiorina administration would mean for millions of Americans and their families who depend on Social Security and Medicare.

...at least what they’ll admit to today, anyway.  


What do GOP “Affluenza,” Social Security and Average Americans have in Common?

Believe it or not...it’s Donald Trump. 

While the Republican Party in Washington continues its search for a solution to “the Donald problem,” a number of analysts have offered insight into how Donald Trump has continued to convince voters that he’s qualified to be President. In the immortal words of James Carville, President Bill Clinton’s iconic campaign advisor:  “It’s (still) the economy, stupid.”

“...the Re­pub­lic­ans were so busy fight­ing Obama­care, push­ing to cut taxes and the size of gov­ern­ment, and fight­ing cul­ture wars that they didn’t see that their party had changed and along with it their base’s needs. Much of what Re­pub­lic­ans were talk­ing about didn’t res­on­ate with work­ing-class people who didn’t have the lux­ury to weigh ab­stract is­sues when they had to worry about how to feed, clothe, and house their kids, and how to make it to the next paycheck.”...Charlie Cook, National Journal Political Analyst

The New York Times also describes how the GOP elite lost its voters to Donald Trump:

“...the story is also one of a party elite that abandoned its most faithful voters, blue-collar white Americans, who faced economic pain and uncertainty over the past decade as the party’s donors, lawmakers and lobbyists prospered. From mobile home parks in Florida and factory towns in Michigan, to Virginia’s coal country, where as many as one in five adults live on Social Security disability payments, disenchanted Republican voters lost faith in the agenda of their party’s leaders.

In dozens of interviews, Republican lawmakers, donors, activists and others described — some with resignation, some with anger — a party that paved the way for a Trump-like figure to steal its base, as it lost touch with less affluent voters and misunderstood their growing anguish.

While wages declined and workers grew anxious about retirement, Republicans offered an economic program still centered on tax cuts for the affluent and the curtailing of popular entitlements like Medicare and Social Security.”

We all remember the incongruence of Tea Party protestors bashing the federal government while also holding signs in support of America’s most successful federal programs, Social Security and Medicare. However, that conflicting message isn’t hard to understand once you acknowledge the fact that while wealthy GOP donors remain the nation’s most vociferous supporters of privatizing and cutting these programs (they have the most to gain financially) average Americans of all political persuasions do not support destroying our nation’s retirement and healthcare safety net.

“In Washington, Republicans read Tea Party anger over Mr. Obama’s health care law as a principled rejection of social welfare programs, despite evidence that those voters broadly supported spending they believed they deserved, like Social Security and Medicare. Amid intense anger at Wall Street, Republicans urged voters to blame the recession on excessively generous federal home-lending policies, while moving to roll back regulation of one of their biggest sources of campaign money, the financial industry.”

“During a recent interview with CNBC, Mr. Ryan was asked if Republicans needed to respond to less-affluent voters who believed that Republicans were tending only to the interests of those at the top. Mr. Ryan, who during the same interview called again for the overhaul of entitlements and the reduction of debt, rejected that idea. “People don’t think like that,” he said. “People want to know the deck is fair. Bernie Sanders talks about that stuff. That’s not who we are.”...The New York Times.

Paul Ryan is right, that’s not who the modern Republican Party is – and that’s where Donald Trump comes in.  Unlike the GOP leadership in Washington, he recognized the massive disconnect between conservative elites and voters.  He even warned conservatives at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference:

"As Republicans, if you think you are going to change very substantially for the worse Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in any substantial way, and at the same time you think you are going to win elections, it just really is not going to happen," Mr. Trump said, adding that polls show that tea partyers are among those who don't want their entitlements changed." ...Donald Trump, 2013 CPAC speech, Washington Times

However, let’s not confuse political astuteness with policy conviction.  Donald Trump version 2.0 is very different than the Donald Trump who’s called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” advocated for raising the retirement age to 70 and privatizing Social Security. Even this newly-minted candidate Trump has yet to offer a plan for Social Security other than the classic conservative canard of getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, which is very small:

  • Since 1989, SSA’s annual administrative costs have been about 1%
  • Fraud in SSI is less than 1% with underpayments more likely than overpayments.
  • There are Social Security numbers linked to people that should have been closed; however, it has not led to significant overpayments 

It’s no wonder the Republican Party is in a panic. Re­pub­lic­an strategist Steve Schmidt on MS­N­BC’s Morn­ing Joe called the Republican Party, “disconnected and decapitated” as they, to this day, continue to ignore the economic reality (and the effect of their trickle-down economic policies) on average Americans.

“The Re­pub­lic­an es­tab­lish­ment in Wash­ing­ton has a case of af­flu­enza. You have six of the 10 wealth­i­est counties in the coun­try sur­round D.C. You have a real-es­tate mar­ket that took a nar­row down­turn but re­boun­ded very quickly. You have a city that’s in­su­lated from eco­nom­ic dis­tress; it’s re­ces­sion-proof to some de­gree. So this Re­pub­lic­an es­tab­lish­ment, the con­sult­ing class in Wash­ing­ton, these are not liv­ing-wage jobs. And at the end of the day, I think they totally miss the psych­ic im­pact, the eco­nom­ic im­pact of the Great Re­ces­sion, of the       eco­nom­ic col­lapse.

It was such a seismic event in the modern history of the country that even eight years later it's the defining issue of the 2016 campaign as it was the defining issue of the 2008 fall campaign. And they just don't get it. They don't understand the impact for blue-collar wage workers in this country over a 20 year basis and you're seeing this now all play out in this general election.”

Not surprisingly, all of the GOP’s preferred candidates for President (those already gone and still remaining) support cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Proving, once again, they still don’t get it.


The Economic Crisis Candidates Continue to Ignore

The Economic Policy Institute’s “The State of American Retirement” combined with the National Institute on Retirement Security’s new report on women and retirement paint a very clear picture of a nation on the brink of an economic crisis that will devastate millions of average American families, if Washington continues to turn a blind eye.

The median family between the ages of 32 and 61 has only $5,000 saved in a retirement account, while the top 1 percent of families has a million dollars or more. For many groups—lower-income, black, Hispanic, non-college-educated, and unmarried—the typical working-age family has no savings at all in these accounts....The State of American Retirement.

“Our retirement system used to reduce inequality, but since the shift to 401(k)s it has only served to magnify it. These accounts are accidents of history that were never designed to replace pensions, and it should come as no surprise that they have not worked for the majority of people.” ...Monique Morrissey, EPI Economist

The numbers are stark:

  • Nearly half of all working-age families have zero retirement savings.
  • Almost nine in 10 families in the top income fifth have savings in retirement accounts, compared to fewer than one in 10 families in the bottom income fifth.
  • Only 41 percent of black families and 26 percent of Hispanic families have retirement account savings, compared with 65 percent of white non-Hispanic families.
  • Only married couples are more likely than not to have retirement account savings.

News that the income inequality hindering American workers now is also carrying over to their retirement is alarming for future generations who are taking an economic hit at every stage of life.  For women, the retirement picture is even worse. 

“A new analysis finds that women are 80% likely than men to be impoverished in retirement. The National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) finds that across all age groups, women have substantially less income in retirement than men. For women age 65 and older, the data indicate that their typical income is 25 percent lower than men. As men and women age, men’s income advantage widens to 44 percent by age 80 and older. Consequently, women were 80 percent more likely than men to be impoverished at age 65 and older, while women age 75 to 79 were three times more likely to fall below the poverty level as compared to their male counterparts.”... National Institute on Retirement Security

Just as we’ve seen from climate change deniers, many Republican politicians won’t even acknowledge the retirement crisis exists because improving the nation’s most successful federal retirement programs is anathema to their misguided belief that Wall Street should be handling your savings and for-profit insurance companies managing your health. Instead of supporting proposals to improve the backbone of America’s retirement system, Social Security and Medicare, conservatives continue their campaign to privatize and cut. 

There are legislative proposals which would improve Americans’ retirement picture but they are languishing in the GOP controlled Congress.  You can see many of these proposals on our Legislative tracker.  We also continue to advocate for meaning changes impacting retirement security for women.  Please take a moment and see those details on our Eleanor’s Hope initiative website. 

USA Today Gets it All Wrong on Social Security

Opinion editors at USA Today wrote an editorial today that, unfortunately, read much like the billion dollar anti-entitlement lobby’s standard news release, loaded with crisis rhetoric and a core misunderstanding about how the Social Security Trust Fund is designed.  All to build the case for cutting already modest benefits in Social Security.

The good news is that, unlike many newspapers, USA Today does have a standard policy of offering rebuttals, as they did to our President/CEO, Max Richtman.  You can read USA Today’s call for benefit cuts in their OpEd here

And this is NCPSSM’s rebuttal.  Please take a moment to comment on these articles and share Max’s rebuttal to help journalists understand why strengthening Social Security benefits is so important to working Americans when they retire.


There’s No Reason for Benefit Cuts: Opposing View

Social Security’s impending doom has been foretold since before the first benefit check was ever delivered. The crisis calls are familiar:

“Social Security is bankrupt!”

“The trust fund isn’t real!”

“We have to cut benefits!”

The truth is very different. Social Security remains strong and will be able to pay full benefits until 2034. After that, there will still be enough income coming into the program to pay 79% of all benefits. But with an average monthly benefit of just $1,300, most beneficiaries cannot afford a 21% benefit cut, and that’s why Congress must pass modest reforms, as it has many times before.

Doing nothing is not an option. However, in this hyper-partisan environment where cutting benefits is worn as a bad

ge of courage with little thought to what those cuts actually mean to working Americans, it’s virtually impossible to engage in a meaningful debate.

Raising the retirement age, cutting the cost-of-living adjustment, privatization and means testing are all benefit cut proposals touted by the billion dollar anti-entitlement lobby and its supporters in Congress as the best ways to close Social Security’s shortfall. The American people support an entirely different approach. Poll after poll, including an important public survey by the National Academy of Social Insurance, show that large bipartisan majorities want to improve benefits and are willing to pay more to stabilize and strengthen the program.

There is no reason for Social Security benefit cuts that would force vulnerable Americans to bear an even greater financial burden than they already do. The fiscal woes of this nation are not due to this worker-funded program, which currently has $2.8 trillion in its trust fund.

Numerous proposals languishing in Congress would extend Social Security’s solvency while also improving benefits by lifting the payroll tax cap, adopting a cost-of-living adjustment for the elderly, expanding the minimum benefit and boosting benefits overall. These are reasonable reforms that deserve consideration.

Max Richtman is president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare.

USA Today Permalink here

Busting More Media Myths on Social Security

The latest GOP Debate provided a whopper of a media myth for NCPSSM's Equal Time to debunk.  

“Social Security is projected to run out of money within 20 years.”  

Dana Bash, CNN Congressional Correspondent. GOP Debate, March 10, 2016

 

Wrong.  Social Security will pay 79% of benefits in twenty years even if nothing is done to close the actuarial gap.  No one projects Social Security will run out of money; in fact, the only way the Social Security program can “run out of money” is if the American people all lose their jobs or quit contributing payroll taxes. However, the Social Security Trust Fund will be eventually be depleted (as it was designed to do) now that the baby boom generation is retiring. 

This distinction is not nitpicking or inconsequential.  A 21% benefit cut is not the same as “Social Security is projected to run out of money.”  Look at it this way, if CNN cut Dana Bash’s salary by 21% does that mean she has no income at all?  Of course not.  She hasn’t “run out of money” she’s taken a big cut.  No one wants that to happen to America’s seniors so a 21% benefit cut must be avoided.  However, a national correspondent should understand the difference between the Trust Fund, built up to handle the baby boomer bulge and the entire Social Security program, a benefit cut and “running out of money.”

This is an all too common error by journalists and one perpetuated by politicians who know the only way to get support for their plans to cut Social Security is to convince America the program is going down the tubes anyway.  Workers have enough reasons to worry about their fiscal futures. As long as some in the media continue to hawk this type of misinformation, a legitimate conversation about how to address the 21% shortfall will remain virtually impossible.  

 

Pages: Prev1234567...19NextReturn Top



Questions?

Have a Social Security or Medicare question?

 

Archives
Media Contacts

Pamela Causey
Communications Director
Causeyp@ncpssm.org(202) 216-8378
(202) 236-2123 cell

Kim Wright
Assistant Director of Communications
Wrightk@ncpssm.org
(202) 216-8414

Entitled to Know

Medicare's Top 10
         

 

Copyright © 2015 by NCPSSM
Login  |