In spite of years and years of doom-and-gloom predictions from conservatives that Obamacare will hurt Medicare, the facts just continue to tell another, very different story. Earlier in the month the annual Medicare Trustees report
showed how the ACA continues to extend the program’s solvency. Now, the Congressional Budget Office
has even more to say:
“You’re looking at the biggest story involving the federal budget and a crucial one for the future of the American economy. Every year for the last six years in a row, the Congressional Budget Office has reduced its estimate for how much the federal government will need to spend on Medicare in coming years. The latest reduction came in a report from the budget office on Wednesday morning.
The changes are big. The difference between the current estimate for Medicare’s 2019 budget and the estimate for the 2019 budget four years ago is about $95 billion. That sum is greater than the government is expected to spend that year on unemployment insurance, welfare and Amtrak — combined. It’s equal to about one-fifth of the expected Pentagon budget in 2019. Widely discussed policy changes, like raising the estate tax, would generate just a tiny fraction of the budget savings relative to the recent changes in Medicare’s spending estimates.”
Unfortunately, these fiscal facts will be ignored by those in Washington determined to cut Medicare benefits. Even though he’s on a nationwide book tour, Rep. Paul Ryan is doing everything possible to ignore talking about his plan which would turn Medicare into CouponCare while also repealing the ACA -- stealing years from Medicare’s solvency, eliminating free screenings for seniors, preserving massive subsidies for private insurers in Medicare Advantage and bringing back the costly prescription drug donut hole.
It must be campaign season! GOP candidates, under Karl Rove’s tutelage, have doubled-down on their Medicare and Social Security dodge and deflect strategy. The heart of this political strategy is to avoid talking about GOP candidates’ true plans for Social Security and Medicare while simultaneously portraying their opponents as the “enemies of seniors.”
Greg Sargent offers this perspective:
“It is remarkable to watch Rove’s group try to position multiple Democratic Senators as the real threat to social insurance for the elderly, for the third straight cycle — and even more intriguingly, to use Simpson Bowles to do so. After all, Simpson Bowles is still widely treated as a paragon of unimpeachable fiscally responsible centrism, and Dems have long been pilloried by Beltway fiscal scold types for refusing to embrace its sanctified prescriptions for deficit reduction.
Indeed, this sort of Crossroads rhetoric should outrage fiscal conservatives. As Philip Klein put it in a post slamming Crossroads’ ad against Mark Pryor: ‘if Republicans want to be a limited government party, they have to be making the case for reforming entitlements — not running ads attacking Democrats from the left.’ “
As a reminder, Simpson Bowles is the Wall Street backed plan which would raise the retirement age, change the Social Security formula to cut benefits by 5%-30% while also changing the COLA formula to cut benefits for both current and future retirees. Simpson Bowles has been touted by conservatives and centrists as a “balanced plan” even though it imposes 75% in benefit cuts (largely on the middle class) and only 25% in revenue increases. How incredibly cynical for Karl Rove and crew to attempt yet another rewrite of history on behalf of his GOP congressional clients, most of whom would not only support Simpson-Bowles but also the GOP/Ryan budget which would be especially devastating to Social Security and Medicare.
So, as you will inevitably see these ads make their way onto your local channels, here’s what you need to remember about the GOP campaign strategy on Social Security and Medicare from their 2012 playbook and our blog post back then:
A memo and campaign how-to video from the National Republican Congressional Committee provides an incredibly clear and cynical look behind their political curtain, as the NRCC gives Republican candidates tips on how to dodge the discussion they really don’t want to have about the votes they’ve already cast on Medicare:
“Do not say: ‘entitlement reform,’ ‘privatization,’ ‘every option is on the table,’ … Do say: ‘strengthen,’ ‘secure,’ ‘save,’ ‘preserve, ‘protect.’” NRCC Memo
It’s up to voters to ask the right questions. That happened in New York with GOP candidate Elise Stefanik and hilarity ensued:
John Nichols at The Nation has this week’s must-read story on Rep. Paul Ryan’s never-ending quest to cut Social Security benefits. Nichols has read Ryan’s new book (so we don’t have to) and provides this analysis:
The well-regarded second-term congressman met with Vice President Dick Cheney, who was at the peak of his co-presidency powers. Like Cheney in his younger years, Ryan was a former congressional aide who had worked the conservative think-tank circuit before getting himself elected to the House. The Washington insiders should have gotten on famously.
But the vice president was not buying what the man, who is now described as “the intellectual leader of the Republican Party,” was selling.
Ryan recalls the meeting this way:
“The surplus has given us a huge opportunity,” I explained. “If we dedicate the Social Security surplus to reform, we can shore up the program and end the raid on the trust fund.” I talked about the opportunity to create a real ownership society, how workers could actually own a piece of the free enterprise system through these reforms. As soon as I finished my pitch, Vice President Cheney said, “Yeah, we’re not going to do that.” Then he looked at the person sitting next to me, signaling that he was ready to hear the next idea. His terse reply was the verbal equivalent of someone swatting an annoying mosquito from his face.
Of course later the Bush administration did in fact try to privatize Social Security with a famously failed national town-hall blitz in which the more they talked, the more the American people rebelled against Bush’s plans to send workers' Social Security to Wall Street. Cheney also supported the privatization of the Pentagon; however, Nichols points out that the politically astute Vice President at least understood one truism that Paul Ryan still seems oblivious to:
Cheney recognized then, as he appeared to again in his 2001 “annoying mosquito” conversation with Ryan, that domestic political calculations require at least some deference to the wisdom of the American people.
Today that wisdom says that the United States need not, and must not, slash the social safety net in order to advance reforms that will be very good for Wall Street but very bad for Main Street. Until Paul Ryan accepts this reality, he will remain stuck on the same questions. Indeed, if the Republicans nominate the ambitious young congressman for president in 2016, and if he runs on the agenda Dick Cheney swatted away fifteen years earlier, Ryan will again find himself asking, “Why did we lose? How did it happen? Why does the Republican Party seem to keep losing ground.”
We recommend you read the whole story here.
Hawaii’s Democratic Senate primary win
for Sen. Brian Schatz sends an important signal to candidates nationwide about the huge role Social Security can and will play in their Congressional re-election bids. From the chained CPI to the Bowles-Simpson amendment, many centrist “new Democrats”
like Hawaii’s Rep. Colleen Hanabusa
, have quietly cast votes for proposals designed to cut benefits to millions of retirees, people with disabilities and their families, while at the same time promising to protect benefits back home.
In Rep. Hanabusa’s case, there were clear differences between her and opponent Sen. Brian Schatz on Social Security. While Schatz supports boosting benefits and co-sponsors legislation to do that, Rep. Hanabusa voted in support of the Bowles-Simpson amendment to HR 444 which advocated for Social Security benefits cuts, raising the retirement age and deficit reduction through 75% in cuts an only 25% in revenue. The Bowles-Simpson plan would be disastrous for America’s families, which is why NCPSSM provided a rare primary endorsement to Senator Schatz:
“You understand, too, that Social Security benefits are earned and that this most successful social insurance program ever should not—must not!—be undermined as some have proposed by cutting benefits. You appreciate that Social Security has not contributed one dime to the nation’s debt and proposals to raise the retirement age and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment in the name of bipartisanship would be disastrous to Americans of all ages. You have underscored your commitment to Social Security by joining with Senate colleagues supporting the “Strengthening Social Security Act” and opposing the oft-cited “chained Consumer Price Index.” NCPSSM Endorsement Letter to Sen. Bryan Schatz, May 27, 2014
Senator Schatz isn’t the only candidate who understands just how disconnected Washington has become from the majority of Americans who -- across all ages and political parties -- oppose cutting Social Security.
Two Democrats in tough Senate races — Mark Begich and Jeff Merkley – have already staked out aggressive postures on expanding Social Security. It’s also supported by Elizabeth Warren and Tom Harkin, and 70 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Expanding Social Security would have to be paid for by lifting or changing the cap or some other means, which could leave Dems vulnerable to charges they are raising taxes. But Brown brushed off that worry. “Democrats win the argument by saying Republicans again are cutting taxes on the rich to deny Social Security beneficiaries the expanded Social Security they should get and have earned,” Brown said. “Most of us should be willing to make that argument.” Washington Post, May 2014
Until now, too many in Congress have not been willing to make that argument and refocus its attention on the retirement deficit facing millions of working Americans. Hopefully, the Hawaii experience will change all that.
Each year we mark Social Security’s anniversary in a different way. But ultimately the goal is always the same...to remind us all how vital America’s most successful program is to millions of families.
“As we celebrate Social Security’s 79th anniversary today, it’s important to acknowledge the program’s vital role in protecting both current and future generations of Americans. Social Security has made a profound improvement in the economic security of millions of families, especially during these tough economic times. For too many Americans, personal savings have been difficult to accumulate because middle class wages have remained stagnant for three decades. More than half of all workers have no retirement plans at work and millions more have no retirement savings.
It’s time Washington addresses our nation’s retirement deficit and its potentially devastating impact on the lives of working class families. This economic recession has clearly shown that Congress must search for ways to improve Social Security’s benefits, not cut them. The National Committee has endorsed nine different pieces of legislation that would enhance Social Security. These include S. 567 and H.R. 3118 which, when fully phased in, would boost benefits by approximately $70 per month for new beneficiaries and adopt the more accurate consumer price index for the elderly (CPI-E) for determining the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA). As a fiscally responsible way to increase and strengthen Social Security finances, we also support lifting the payroll tax cap. NCPSSM’s national Boost Social Security Now Campaign continues to raise awareness of the need to increase benefits.
Our nation needs more from Social Security, not less. These modest earned benefits have become the last remaining pillar of economic security for millions of Americans who will depend on the program for most, if not all, of their retirement income.”....Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
This year we used this 79th anniversary as an opportunity to hear directly from our large and vocal Facebook community. We asked our nearly 60,000 followers there to complete this thought:
Here’s a sample of what they said:
“All I can say is, thank goodness for Social Security. I'd be destitute without it.”
“I would be homeless and hungry”
“I would be destitute, starving, and without vital medical help. SS is my only source of dependable income that I can rely on.”
“I would be hard pressed to take care of Mom and the house without our Social Security!”
For all of these reasons, now is the time Washington should be looking for ways to Boost Social Security. Wouldn’t that be a terrific Anniversary present?
Indicates required fields
Have a Social Security or Medicare question?