Letter to the House of Representatives Supporting H. Con. Res. 72

October 14, 2011

United States House of Representatives
Washington , DC 20515

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I am contacting you to express our strong support for H. Con. Res. 72, the resolution introduced by Representative John Conyers, Jr., "expressing the sense of Congress that any legislative language approved by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should not reduce benefits for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients." For the reasons outlined below, we urge you – if you have not already done so - to cosponsor H. Con. Res. 72.

Social Security is one of the most successful income security programs in our nation's history. It is a vitally important economic lifeline for millions of America 's most vulnerable people, including aged individuals and persons with disabilities, as well as their spouses, dependents, and survivors. Over 54 million Americans will receive benefits from this program in 2011 and about 156 million workers will contribute to it in anticipation of the day when they, too, will qualify for Social Security.

Throughout its history, Social Security has been funded almost exclusively by contributions from workers and their employers. These contributions are used to pay benefits for current beneficiaries and the costs associated with the administration of the program. For many years, these contributions have substantially exceeded the cost of running the program. In fact, the Social Security Trust Funds current have assets in excess of $2.6 trillion. These assets, together with the steady of stream of income produced by workers' contributions, will enable Social Security to pay all scheduled benefits for the next 25 years.

This is a program that in its entire 76 year history has never contributed a single dime to the enormous deficits that are plaguing our country today. That's why we agree with the sense of H. Con. Res. 72 that any deficit reduction plan produced by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should not reduce benefits for Social Security.

We are especially concerned about proposals that reportedly are under consideration by the Joint Select Committee that would reduce the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that seniors depend on in retirement to protect their Social Security benefits against the harmful effects of inflation. The current measure of inflation used to calculate the COLA already undercounts the higher cost increases experienced by seniors whose incomes are disproportionately spent on health care costs. Switching to a chained-CPI, which is a benefit cut, pure and simple, will exacerbate existing problems and will make it increasingly more difficult for generations of retires and the disabled to make ends meet.

Nor should the Joint Select Committee cut health care benefits for America 's seniors as a way of balancing the budget. We are particularly concerned about harmful cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that would shift health and long-term care costs to beneficiaries. This would be devastating for Medicare beneficiaries, including the many beneficiaries who also rely on Medicaid to pay for Medicare's cost-sharing and for long-term care services and supports.

Even with Medicare, health care is very expensive for older Americans. Seniors already pay 27 percent of their average Social Security benefit for Medicare Parts B and D cost-sharing. This is in addition to out-of-pocket health care costs not covered by Medicare. With half of Medicare beneficiaries having incomes below $22,000 per year, they cannot afford to pay more for health care. Further increasing cost sharing could force many Medicare beneficiaries to put off needed health care until their condition deteriorates to the point where they must seek more costly care in the future.

It is also important to point out that raising the Medicare eligibility age, which would save money for the federal government, would increase out-of-pocket costs for 65 and 66 year-olds, and for employers providing retiree health benefits. In addition, it would increase costs for younger people buying private insurance and for seniors covered by Medicare since the risk pools would include older beneficiaries.

Reductions to Medicaid funding would affect low-income seniors, many of whom have spent their life savings to pay for long-term care . Older adults and people with disabilities account for two-thirds of all Medicaid spending, and Medicaid pays for about 62 percent of all long-term services and supports. Proposed cuts to Medicaid - including the establishment of a federal Medicaid "blended rate" - would affect older Americans by jeopardizing the availability and quality of long-term care both in nursing homes and in the community.

We would also like to mention that cutting Social Security and Medicare is strongly opposed by the American people. Recent polling conducted by a Democratic/GOP research partnership shows Republicans, Democrats and Independents are united in their views on the matter. For example, 82 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Independents and 58 percent of Republicans are against cutting Social Security and Medicare. By a 3 to 1 margin, people who consider themselves fiscal conservatives – regardless of their political affiliation – oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit, and they oppose cutting Medicare by a margin of 2.5 to 1. Clearly, the American people want the Congress to find some other way of balancing the budget than cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Thank you for your efforts to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients from reductions in the benefits they rely on for a secure retirement.

We look forward to continuing to work with you to protect America 's seniors.

Sincerely,

Max Richtman
President & CEO