Posted on 10/20/2016 9:06 AM By NCPSSM
OK...we're just 18 days until election day and the final debate has come and gone. Thank goodness.
While Social Security and Medicare finally got their 90 seconds of fame last night, as expected, the question was framed exactly how Washington's well-funded fiscal hawks had hoped -- America can't afford "entitlements," (wrong), the programs are the biggest drivers of our debt (nope), are going bankrupt (actually no, they're not) and then the real heart of the question: How are you going to cut benefits?
Unfortunately, this approach guaranteed there would be no real conversation about the benefits millions of seniors depend on. Here is NCPSSM's President/CEO, Max Richtman's reaction:
“Rather than focusing on the candidate’s plans for improving Social Security and Medicare’s long-term solvency, strengthening benefits and tackling the retirement crisis looming for millions of workers and retirees, last night’s viewers were stuck with the same old crisis calls that ‘entitlements’ are bankrupting America. No doubt, Washington’s billion dollar anti-Social Security lobby was happy to have some life pumped back into their middle-class killing campaign to cut benefits; however, America’s voters deserved far more from this debate.
Make no mistake about it, the choices between Clinton and Trump couldn’t be starker. Donald Trump’s Social Security shape-shifting leaves voters with no idea of how he plans to improve solvency and benefit adequacy. Doing nothing isn’t an option. Contrary to his insult last night, hearing Hillary Clinton tell the truth about how to strengthen Social Security's funding isn't ‘nasty,’ it's just reality. As long as America's wealthiest are allowed to avoid paying their share of payroll taxes, Social Security suffers. Period. While Clinton supports expanding benefits, Trump’s only policy promise last night was to repeal Obamacare. That cuts years from Medicare’s solvency and billions in preventive care, prescription drugs and cost-reducing benefits to seniors.
Most Americans know that our nation faces a retirement crisis. Our economy depends on strong Social Security and Medicare programs and improving benefits is vital to keeping millions from poverty. Too bad voters weren’t allowed to hear any of that debated last night.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Posted on 10/18/2016 10:38 AM By NCPSSM
Today’s announcement that there will be a tiny .3% Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increase next year means that 40 million seniors who rely on their Social Security to get by will once again find their expenses outpacing their Social Security benefit. This continues the trend of historically low cost-of-living adjustments for seniors. Over the past eight years, the current COLA formula has led to average increases of just over 1%, with three of those years seeing no increase at all. For the average senior, the 2017 COLA will mean an extra $4.00 per month which would barely cover the average cost of one Lipitor pill, a prescription drug frequently prescribed to seniors.
“No one can say with a straight face that providing the average senior with an additional four dollars a month will come even close to covering the true cost of living that retirees face. The average senior spends more than $5,000 a year on healthcare costs alone. A $4 Social Security COLA doesn’t even make a dent in covering rising costs for seniors.
I’ve asked seniors at town hall meetings around the country how many of them think the COLA represents their true cost of living -- laughter is always the response. We should move to a COLA formula that takes a more accurate measure of seniors’ expenses, which is a CPI for the elderly. The CPI-E has been in the experimental phase since 1982. It’s time to finish the job by fully funding the development of a more accurate COLA formula.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
While the Affordable Care Act has slowed the growth of Medicare costs, Part B premiums continue to rise much faster than the COLA. Final Medicare premiums won’t be announced until later this fall; however, the majority of beneficiaries (70%) are protected from steep premium hikes due to “hold harmless” provisions in the law which protects Social Security benefits from being reduced if the COLA is not large enough to cover the increase in the Part B premium.
The 30% of beneficiaries not eligible for the hold harmless provision include; new enrollees during the year, enrollees who do not receive a Social Security benefit check, enrollees with high incomes who are subject to the income-related premium adjustment, and dual Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries, whose full premiums are paid by state Medicaid programs. They could face much higher premium costs.
Congressional action mitigated the Part B premium hike last year for these beneficiaries. The National Committee will, once again, work with key Members of Congress and the Administration to ensure these seniors aren’t hit with a significant premium increase next year.
Posted on 10/14/2016 1:55 PM By NCPSSM
News that Social Security and Medicare might finally be topics discussed in the last Presidential debate on Wednesday night should be welcome news for those of us who’ve worked hard all year to try and get Presidential candidates to talk specifics about their plans for the nation’s most important government programs. It should be...but unfortunately, it’s not.
Why? Because, debate moderator Chris Wallace says “entitlements” will be discussed as part of a debt discussion. This framing follows the talking points crafted by the billion dollar Wall Street/corporate funded anti-Social Security and Medicare lobby that’s worked for decades to cut benefits. Framing benefits cuts as a way to “save” Social Security and Medicare while reducing the debt has long been the poll-tested language used to sell the American people on middle-class benefit cuts to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy:
“The push for benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the name of deficit reduction has always been the goal of the billion dollar corporate and Wall Street backed crisis campaign driving Washington's deficit hysteria. “Never let a good crisis go to waste” was a strategic political move capitalizing on deficits as a way to force middle-class benefit cuts on Americans already shell-shocked in the Great Recession. Once deficits reduced (without the drastic cuts to benefits that corporate lobbyists assured us must happen), the anti-“entitlement” lobby lost its inside-the-Beltway political momentum.”...Entitled to Know
Lumping Social Security and Medicare together and calling them “entitlements” is also telling. These are earned benefits, not entitlements, which American workers have contributed to throughout their working lives. Conservatives have long used the word “entitlements” to make those earned benefits seem like welfare. This political strategy also ignores the fact that Social Security and Medicare are unique programs, providing different services to a diverse group of Americans. These programs face very distinctive challenges. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for America’s most important healthcare program (Medicare) and retirement security program (Social Security). However, this is exactly the way next week’s debate has framed the conversation.
As we’ve said before,
“There is an important Social Security and Medicare conversation to be had. We must find long-term solvency solutions that also address our nation’s retirement and health security crisis. Obamacare went a long way toward improving the health care picture but more work remains to be done. Retirement USA reports the gap between what Americans need to retire and what they actually have is $7.7 trillion. In fact, about half of households age 55 and older have no retirement savings and a third of current workers aged 55 to 64 are likely to be poor or near-poor in retirement. Unfortunately, the median retirement account balance is a puny $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households. Vanguard reports that 401K balances, for those who do have them, fell a median of 11% last year. Social Security remains the only stable retirement income for many Americans.”
While conservative fiscal hawks, including many Fox news commentators, see Social Security as solely a source of “investment-draining and economy-staling uncertainty,” the truth is, Social Security is a hugely stabilizing force for the economy. A new report from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation shows that, in 2014 alone, Social Security delivered a $1.6 trillion fiscal boost nationwide as benefits were spent and cycled through the economy. Is there any chance that Social Security’s vital contribution to our economy will come up in next week’s debate? Nah.
There is a way to have the conversation that needs to be had on the future of Social Security and Medicare and it starts with one simple question:
“What are your specific plans to ensure Social Security and Medicare’s long-term solvency and improve benefits?”
The final Presidential debate is at 9 p.m. (Eastern Time) on Wednesday, Oct. 19, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Each of the subjects will get a 15-minute time segment.
Posted on 10/5/2016 1:39 PM By NCPSSM
Debate watchers predicted last night’s Vice Presidential debate might put policy above personality (for a change) and to some degree that happened. For starters, the words Social Security and Medicare were finally uttered by participants. That’s progress given that millions of average Americans and their families depend on these programs, plus the fact that the candidates’ records couldn’t be more different. The discussion itself; however, certainly wasn’t very deep. Here is the exchange.
There are a couple key points here. Mike Pence absolutely refused to acknowledge or address in any way his record as one of Congress’ leading supporters of privatization. As we reported earlier, when Pence was in the House he supported a privatization scheme that was even more draconian than the failed effort by President Bush. Even after the President admitted defeat, Pence continued to push for the privatization of Social Security. But Pence’s dodge and deflect skills were in full force last night:
KAINE: But -- but you have a voting record, Governor.
PENCE: And I get all of that. I just, look...
PENCE: There's a question that you asked a little bit earlier that I want to go back to.
KAINE: I can't believe that you won't defend your own voting record.
PENCE: I have to go back to.
PENCE: Well, look, I -- you're running with Hillary Clinton, who wants to raise taxes by $1 trillion, increase spending by $2 trillion, and you say you're going to keep the promises of Social Security. Donald Trump and I are going to cut taxes. We're going to -- we're going to -- we're going to...
KAINE: You're not going to cut taxes. You're going to raise taxes on the middle class.
PENCE: ... reform government programs so we can meet the obligations of Social Security and Medicare.
Republican talking points have long required that candidates use “reform” when they mean cut, and “protect” when they mean privatize. The promise to protect current seniors’ benefits is also a poll-tested strategy designed to misdirect attention away from plans to cut benefits for future generations. This “greedy geezer” approach assumes seniors only care about their own benefits, not their children and grandchildren’s.
“The purest articulation of intergenerational warfare as a wedge to break up Social Security's political coalition is a 1983 paper published by the libertarian Cato Journal. It was titled "Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy," an allusion to the Bolshevik leader's supposed ideas about dividing and weakening his political adversaries.
The paper advocated making a commitment to honor Social Security's commitment to the retired and near-retired as a tool to "detach, or at least neutralize" them as opponents of privatization or other changes. Meanwhile, doubts among the young about the survival of the program should be exploited so they could be "organized behind the private alternative."
So when you hear a politician promising to exempt the retired and near retired from changes to Social Security, while offering to make it more "secure" for future generations, you now know the game plan.”...Los Angeles Times, 2012
Senator Tim Kaine was right to try and force some clarity from the Trump/Pence campaign on their specific plans for the nation’s most effective retirement and health security programs because, in a nutshell, the Donald Trump of this campaign does not resemble the “Social-Security- is-a-Ponzi scheme” Donald Trump of any other year. Why, is not really mystery as Trump 2.0 himself has said:
"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" ...Trump at 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference
Hopefully, last night’s VP debate won’t be our only chance to hear the Presidential campaigns address Social Security and Medicare. American voters deserve to hear specifics about what these candidates have done and said...not just what they promise they’ll do.
Posted on 10/3/2016 3:21 PM By NCPSSM
A group of freshman GOP Senators has decided the time is right to launch a frontal assault on funding for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Led by Georgia’s David Perdue, the conservative Senators claim the only way to tackle the nation’s debt is to fundamentally change the way America’s earned benefit programs have been managed since their creation.
Specifically, they want to give Congress new authority to cut benefits each year (or at least every other year) including the creation of arbitrary spending caps. Both moves ignore the unique nature of how Social Security and Medicare are funded; specifically, the fact that American workers contribute to these earned benefits through their payroll taxes.
“We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”...President Franklin Roosevelt
“In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.”...Social Security Administration
For years, the billion dollar anti-Social Security lobby and their allies in Congress have tried to use our nation’s economic woes as an excuse to cut the earned benefits that millions of average Americans have paid for and depend on. This latest effort would put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block for each and every budget battle.
Not surprisingly, Republican spin-meisters acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans, no matter their political affiliations, oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare to balance the budget. Their solution? Just don’t admit that’s the goal. Instead, stick to talking points that promise you’re “saving” the program rather than the truth...that you’re slashing benefits:
“Republican pollster Whit Ayres says that despite the long-held conventional wisdom, it’s not suicide to talk about entitlement reform right before an election. But he cautioned senators to proceed cautiously.
‘Here’s what voters want to see: A healthy and thriving Social Security and Medicare system,” Ayres said. ‘If Social Security and Medicare are going to be jeopardized without any changes, then voters will support changes.’
But he warned that entitlement reforms have to be framed as proposals to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and not primarily as a strategy to balance the budget.
‘The Democrats then come along and say we should not balance the budgets on the backs of our seniors and they win the argument,” he added. “But it’s very effective to argue that we have to reform our entitlement programs to preserve and protect those programs for current and future generations.’ ...The Hill, 10/1/16
In an attempt to appeal to America’s (understandable) frustration with Congress (or more likely to deflect attention away from this attack on middle-class benefits) these GOP Senators suggest that if Congress doesn’t pass a budget (which could include cuts to Social Security and Medicare) then lawmakers would be penalized with a “steep reduction” to their paychecks. While that might make the populists out there say, “it’s about time,” don’t forget the fact that the majority of U.S. Senators are millionaires. You can be sure that the Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts they propose for you will hurt far more than any threat to trim Congressional salaries:
“The median net worth for all senators increased to $2.7 million from $2.5 million, but in that body it was the Republicans who were better-off. Senate Democrats reported a median net worth of $1.7 million (a decline from 2011’s $2.4 million), compared to Senate Republicans, at $2.9 million (an increase from $2.5 million).”...Open Secrets
Seniors should not fall for this political bait and switch. If Congress really wants to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future generations then let’s talk about lifting the payroll tax cap or allowing Medicare to negotiate for cheaper prescription drug costs. However, you won’t see these proposals offered by fiscal hawks. Why?
Because they don’t cut benefits. That’s what this is all about.