Font Size

From the category archives: Social Security

FDR's Grandson on Social Security... Which Turns 82 Today

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law on this day in 1935 to provide seniors with basic income security after retirement, mitigating against the “vicissitudes and hazards of life.” Eighty-two years later, the program he created has kept several generations of seniors – and their families – out of poverty.  In turn, the nation is very fortunate to have had several generations of Roosevelts dedicated to preserving Social Security. 

Franklin Roosevelt’s son, Congressman James Roosevelt, Sr., founded the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare in 1982 to protect the financial security, health, and well-being of current and future generations of Americans.  FDR’s grandson, James (“Jim”) Roosevelt, Jr., carries on his family’s legacy as a leading healthcare advocate and vice-chair of the National Committee’s Advisory Board. 

Last March, Jim Roosevelt sat down with National Committee President Max Richtman for a wide-ranging Facebook Live interview.  We have included some highlights of that interview below as we look at the legacy of Social Security on its 82nd anniversary.

Jim’s grandfather, President Franklin Roosevelt, became inspired to create a national retirement insurance program after seeing older Americans relegated to the poor houses because they had no means of supporting themselves. “It tears my heart to see those old men and women there,” said then-Governor Roosevelt after visiting the poor houses of New York state.  As Jim Roosevelt explained, FDR felt that seniors deserved an assurance of fundamental financial security.

He believed (and we still believe) that Social Security is basic to the lives of the American people. And he was very clear that it was a family program.  It was created not only so that people, when they reach retirement age, have enough money for the basics of a decent life. It’s also so that their children don’t have to spend down their money to take care of them. – Jim Roosevelt

Working with Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, FDR pushed the Social Security Act of 1935 through Congress at the height of the Great Depression.  To some, it was counterintuitive that  President Roosevelt put such a high priority on retirement insurance at a time when so many millions of Americans couldn’t find work.  But Jim Roosevelt told us that FDR viewed retirement security and employment as inextricably linked.

People said to my grandfather, “Why are you worrying about people’s retirement when people need jobs?”  And he said these are tied together. If people have jobs, they can pay into Social Security knowing that they’ll have benefits later on.  Life is then worth living, work is worth doing.  And I think that’s what has remained the vision for me, for my father, and for the National Committee over these past 30 years. – Jim Roosevelt

It was very important to President Roosevelt that Social Security be funded directly through workers’ payroll contributions.  FDR said that payroll contributions would give retirees “the legal, moral, and political right” to collect their Social Security benefits. He knew that a perpetually self-funded program would guarantee Social Security’s endurance for generations to come, and protect the program from the whims of politicians who might seek to undermine it

The reason that Social Security is structured the way it is is so that nobody, just for political reasons, can cut Social Security out of the budget or out of the law.  Because Social Security has its own dedicated income stream from the payroll tax, we don’t just trade if off against education or defense or other important things.  My grandfather famously said, “With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program.”  That’s as true today as it was in 1935. – Jim Roosevelt

President Roosevelt’s vision has most certainly endured. Today, Social Security provides some 61 million Americans and their families with basic financial security upon retirement or disability.  For older Americans, Social Security can mean the difference between financial well-being and poverty.  Two out of three seniors rely on Social Security for most of their income, and one-third of seniors depend on it for at least 90% of their income. Public polling consistently shows that Social Security enjoys overwhelming support from majorities of Americans across party lines.

Over the years, Social Security has been modified (with bipartisan support) to expand benefits and keep the system financially sound. This year, Social Security has come under new threat from budget hawks in the Trump administration and on Capitol Hill.  But as generations of Roosevelts have shown us, Social Security is worth fighting for.  On this, Social Security’s 82nd anniversary, we at the National Committee recommit ourselves to preserving this landmark program for current and future generations of Americans.

Watch our full interview with Jim Roosevelt on Facebook Live

House GOP Recklessly Pursues Privatization of Medicare in Budget Process

Congress is targeting the health and financial well-being of America’s seniors by making yet another attempt to privatize Medicare.   Yesterday the House Budget Committee passed the GOP’s FY 2018 budget resolution, which includes Speaker Paul Ryan’s “Medicare premium support” scheme – an innocuous name for turning time-tested senior health care coverage into “Coupon-Care.”  

The House budget blueprint slashes nearly $500 billion from Medicare over ten years and raises the eligibility age from 65 to 67 – along with gutting Medicaid and other social safety net programs for needy seniors.  

The Associated Press had a pithy summary of the painful cuts that the GOP proposes in its new budget:

“The plan, in theory at least, promises to balance the budget through unprecedented and unworkable cuts across the budget. It calls for turning this year's projected $700 billion or so deficit into a tiny $9 billion surplus by 2027. It would do so by slashing $5.4 trillion over the coming decade, including almost $500 billion from Medicare, $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and the Obama health law, along with enormous cuts to benefits such as federal employee pensions, food stamps, and tax credits for the working poor.” – Associated Press, 7/18/17

 National Committee President Max Richtman says that converting Medicare into a voucher program is an existential threat to the program itself. 

 “Over time, giving seniors vouchers to purchase health insurance would dramatically increase their out of pocket costs since the fixed amount of the voucher is unlikely to keep up with the rising costs of health care. And, as healthier seniors choose less costly private plans, the sicker and poorer seniors would remain in traditional Medicare, leading to untenable costs, diminished coverage, and an eventual demise of traditional Medicare, plain and simple.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM President

Of course, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as the House spending plan also proposes, is in itself a drastic benefit cut.

Undermining Medicare has been a long-held dream of fiscal conservatives. Their “premium support” proposal is a thinly veiled scheme to allow traditional Medicare to “wither on the vine,” as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich once put it.

Privatization is being sold as “improving customer choice,” but based on the way current Medicare Advantage plans work, private insurance will continue to offer fewer choices of doctors than traditional Medicare does.  If traditional Medicare is allowed to shrink and collapse, choice will disappear, too.

“Weakening Medicare is a politically perilous path for Republicans.  Recent polling indicates that large majorities of Americans across party lines prefer that Medicare be kept the way it is, not to mention that President Trump repeatedly promised to protect the program during the 2016 campaign.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM President

Meanwhile, the National Committee strongly condemns other priorities of the House Republican budget resolution, as well.  The GOP budget resolution will mean: 

*Hundreds of billions in painful cuts to Medicaid, which seniors depend on for long-term care services and supports.

*Reaffirmation of a House rule that puts 11 million Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries at risk of a 7% benefit cut in 2028.

*Reductions to SSI (Supplemental Security Insurance), which provides cash assistance to low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

 *Caps on non-defense spending that will likely lead to devastating cuts to Older Americans Act programs and the Social Security Administration (SSA) operating budget.

 *Slashing of programs that benefit our nation’s veterans and deep cuts to spending on medical research (including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and other conditions afflicting the elderly).

The savings from these devastating cuts will likely go to tax breaks for the wealthy.  Last year’s House Republican tax plan gave 99.6% of its benefits to the top one-percent of earners, with virtually nothing for middle and low income Americans.

 

 

Social Security and Medicare are Financially Sound, Not “Going Bankrupt,” says Trustees Report

The 2017 OASDI Trustees Report confirms that the Social Security Trust fund is stable and healthy for now, but faces challenges in the future if corrective action is not taken.  The most important figures remain consistent with last year’s report:  The combined OASDI (Old-age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance) trust funds will remain fully solvent until 2034, after which Social Security can pay 77% of benefits if there are no changes to the program. The Trustees report there is now $2.847 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, which is $35.2 billion more than last year --- and that it will continue to grow by payroll contributions and interest on the Trust Fund's assets.  

This reassuring report will not stop Social Security’s opponents from seeing the glass half-empty and claiming that the program is in dire financial trouble.  Expect to hear more false cries about Social Security (and Medicare) going “bankrupt” in the coming months. 

“Opponents of Social Security may once again try to use this report as an excuse to cut benefits, including raising the retirement age.  We must, instead, look to modest and manageable solutions that will keep Social Security solvent well into the future without punishing seniors and disabled Americans.” - Max Richtman, NCPSSM president and CEO

The National Committee endorses bills introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and others, which keep the Social Security trust fund solvent while boosting benefits and cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).  The bills achieve this mainly by phasing out the payroll tax income cap so that the wealthy pay their fair share into Social Security.

Forty percent of seniors (and 90% of unmarried seniors) rely on Social Security for all or most of their income.  The average monthly retirement benefit of $1,355 is barely enough to meet basic needs, and the Trustees’ latest projected cost-of-living increase of 2.2% will not keep pace with seniors’ true expenses. 

The news media touted the 2.2% bump for 2018 as “the largest in several years.” While it’s true that next year’s COLA is far superior to this year’s 0.3% increase, it is still woefully inadequate.  What the media don’t always explain is that a 2.2% increase translates into an extra $28 per month – hardly a fortune for seniors struggling to meet rising expenses on fixed incomes. A single co-pay for a prescription or a trip in a wheelchair van could easily gobble up $28, if not more.

Currently, Social Security cost of living increases are pegged to the Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners or CPI-W.  This index does not reflect seniors’ true expenses.  Older Americans pay a disproportionate share of their limited incomes for items like housing and medical care compared to younger wage earners.  The National Committee advocates the adoption of the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which tracks rising costs for the goods and services seniors actually spend their money on.  The leading categories are Housing, Transportation, Food and Medical Care.  As the National Committee’s Webster Phillips told CBS Radio News: 

“The consumer price index for the elderly (CPI-E), which is focused on the spending patterns of seniors, is a better measure of inflation as it affects older people’s consumption patterns.” – Webster Phillips, NCPSSM Senior Policy Analyst, 7/13/17

On Medicare, the Trustees report shows that the Part A Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits until 2029, and 88% thereafter if nothing is done to bolster the system’s finances.  Depending on what the final version looks like, the Republican healthcare plan could reduce the solvency of Medicare by two years. The National Committee opposes the GOP health plan and rejects efforts to privatize Medicare – which Speaker Ryan and the House Republicans have promised to undertake during the budget resolution process for 2018.

Instead of privatization, the National Committee champions innovation and continuing efficiencies in the delivery of care, allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, and restoring rebates the pharmaceutical companies used to pay the federal government for drugs prescribed to “dual eligibles” (those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid) – in order to keep Medicare in sound financial health.

Massachusetts Congressman is an Unassuming, Unrelenting Champion of Social Security

This morning National Committee President Max Richtman interviewed a real fighter for Social Security and Medicare on Facebook Live from Capitol Hill – Congressman Richard Neal (D-MA-1). 

The Congressman, who the Boston Globe called “an unassuming everyday guy from Western Massachusetts,” has a unique vantage point on seniors’ issues.  He is the ranking member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees (among other things) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and taxes.  He assumed the post just before President Trump arrived in Washington, and has become a key point person against a Republican assault on these programs.

Neal is a true believer in Social Security, partly because he grew up with it.  He and his sisters were raised by an aunt in Springfield, MA after their parents died, and relied on Social Security survivors’ benefits to make ends meet and remain under one roof.  “Social Security allowed us to live as a family, and I’ve never forgotten that,” Neal told Max Richtman.

The Congressman is determined that Social Security be preserved for future generations – without benefit cuts – as a singular form of retirement insurance.  “You can outlive an annuity.  You cannot outlive Social Security,” he said on Facebook Live.  “That’s the guarantee.  That’s the genius of Mr. Roosevelt’s program.”  (Social Security was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, father of National Committee founder James Roosevelt, Sr.)

Social Security, Neal says, gives American families a modicum of financial predictability for their senior years.  He told the Globe that Social Security “is the reason Mom and Dad aren’t living in your attic.”

Neal is co-sponsoring Connecticut Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act – one of the Democrats’ resounding replies to Republican schemes to shrink the program.  Larson’s bill keeps Social Security solvent for decades without cutting benefits.  In fact, The Social Security 2100 Act modestly increases benefits.  Rep. Neal admits that the bill probably won’t go very far while Republicans control Congress.  But he says the legislation “invites fresh thinking about how to encourage growth in Social Security.”

Meanwhile, the Congressman vehemently opposes a bill from House Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) that would do the opposite of Larson’s – reducing cost-of-living adjustments, raising the retirement age to 69 and cutting the benefit-computation formula. All of this, Neal says, would amount to a 30% cut in benefits for middle-class retirees.

Neal shoots down conservative arguments that Americans’ increasing longevity justifies raising the retirement age.  Without Social Security, nearly half of our nation’s seniors would live in poverty – all the more reason, Neal says, not to pull the rug from under retirees by delaying eligibility for benefits.  “We applaud each other regularly for increases in life expectancy in America,” says Neal.  “But all that means is that we have to reinforce the guarantees that Social Security provides.”

Myths about Mental Illness and Social Security Disability Insurance Debunked

In order to justify its $64 billion in cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), the Trump administration and its allies have had to propagate several myths.  The most insidious one is that many SSDI recipients are not truly worthy of benefits.  They have suggested that mental illness is among the more dubious qualifications for SSDI.  Senator Rand Paul famously remarked that “over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts.” Former Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling sums it up quite succinctly in The Atlantic:

 

The Administration is already deploying selective—and often deceptive—facts to stigmatize and caricature both the Social Security Disability Insurance program and its recipients. This sort of framing justifies using Social Security as a piggy bank to raid in order to help offset tax cuts for top-earning Americans. – Gene Sperling, 5/23/17

 

These convenient myths can be effective in undermining public support for SSDI, but they are dangerous for the millions of Americans with mental disorders who depend on federal disability benefits to prevent them from sinking into abject poverty.  Here are the facts: 

 

Nearly 25% of the nation’s 8 million SSDI recipients have a mental impairment as their primary diagnosis – or qualification – for benefits. They may suffer from a variety of disorders, including severe depression, anxiety, PTSD and intellectual impairment, which make it impossible for them to work or hold a job.  Many of those deemed eligible for SSDI benefits because of mental disorders also suffer from related physical disabilities.  The majority of these beneficiaries are over 50 years of age.  These are some of the vulnerable people the Trump administration is targeting with budget cuts – beneficiaries who struggle to make ends meet on an average $1172 per month from SSDI, just above the federal poverty line.  As Think Progress reports, for eight in ten beneficiaries, SSDI is their main or sole source of income. 

 

Why don’t these SSDI recipients simply work for a living, as OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and other administration apologists insinuate that they should?  Stacy Cloyd, Deputy Director of Government Affairs for the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR), explains why it’s so difficult for people with severe mental impairments to hold a job:  

 

“The symptoms of mental illness can make it difficult to concentrate on tasks, to routinely interact with customers and put on a friendly face, or handle changes in the workplace.  Like people with physical disabilities, those struggling with mental disorders may need to miss an excessive amount of work for doctor’s appointments, hospitalizations, or because of side effects from medications.”  - Stacy Cloyd, Deputy Dir. of Gov’t Affairs, NOSSCR

 

Stacy recalls two clients from a previous job assisting SSDI claimants whose stories starkly illustrate why it’s so difficult for the mentally impaired to sustain paying work.  One was a woman who suffered from PTSD due to domestic abuse.  After her husband tried to burn down their house, she experienced debilitating flashbacks and panic attacks that resembled seizures, and could barely leave home.  No longer to able to work, she had to discontinue her job in the fast food industry and applied for SSDI.  “She was awarded benefits at the time she needed them, which enabled her to keep a roof over head and food on the table while seeking treatment,” Cloyd explains.

 

The second client was a man in his 60s who had an intellectual impairment (formerly known as “mental retardation”) who for several years worked as a custodian through a special employment program and paid into Social Security.  He was later forced to give up the custodial work due to a variety of ailments.  Unable to find alternate employment because of his intellectual impairment, he applied for – and received – SSDI benefits.  It’s hard to imagine this older man being able to meet his basic living expenses without a job and without SSDI. 

 

While some fiscal conservatives and others perpetuate the myth that people on SSDI are simply lazy and scamming the system in order to avoid working, Cloyd insists that the opposite is true.

 

“If given a choice between dealing with the pain they suffer – mentally or physically – and collecting SSDI benefits… or being free of this pain and working for a living, I can tell you that they all would choose to work.” - Stacy Cloyd, Deputy Dir. of Gov’t Affairs, NOSSCR

 

Of course, having a severe mental or physical impairment is no guarantee of receiving SSDI benefits. The United States has one of the strictest federal disability standards in the world (only South Korea is more stringent).  Only one in four SSDI applicants is actually approved for benefits.  Wait times for approvals and appeals can be anywhere from months to years. In case anyone doubts the severity of beneficiaries’ conditions, one in six men on SSDI die within 5 years of approval for benefits; for women, the figure is one in seven.

 

Unfortunately, the cold facts do not deter the administration’s propagandists from insisting that many SSDI beneficiaries are somehow undeserving of help – even though they must have worked and paid into Social Security for five of the past ten years before applying.  The ARC advocacy organization estimates that 946,000 beneficiaries could be booted off SSDI if the Trump budget cuts are enacted:  that’s nearly one million mentally and physically impaired Americans deprived of minimal benefits to “keep a roof above their heads and food on the table” in order to give the wealthy and big corporations a massive tax cut. Capitol Hill watchers say the President’s budget is simply a “messaging document” with little chance of passage, in which case we say it is a cruel and frightening message to send some of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.  

******************************************

For more on mental impairments and Social Security Disability Insurance, watch this week's "Behind The Headlines" on Facebook Live. 

Pages: Prev1234567...112NextReturn 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

Walter Gottlieb
Assistant Communications Director 
gottliebw@ncpssm.org
(202) 216-8414

Entitled to Know

            

 

Copyright © 2017 by NCPSSM
Login  |