Loading...
Blog2023-02-16T14:29:22-04:00
306, 2015

National Seniors’ Coalition Transfers Chairmanship to NCPSSM

By |June 3rd, 2015|Max Richtman|

NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, Assumes Chairmanship of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations

“For too many years our nation’s most successful retirement and health security programs have been under almost constant assault by those who hope to cut these programs to pay for a myriad of other purposes – from tax cuts and deficit reduction to trade deals.  These attacks come at a time when 10,000 Americans turn 65 each day, our nation faces a retirement crisis and the need for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Older Americans Act programs is growing. With so much at stake and a stormy political climate ahead, the National Committee is proud to take over the leadership of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations continuing the LCAO’s important work on behalf of America’s seniors. We’re at a critical time in history and the LCAO will lead the effort to strengthen programs seniors and their families depend on.”…Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

The 72 senior advocacy groups that comprise the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations have spent decades educating and advocating on behalf of the nation’s senior citizens.  From Social Security to long-term care issues, the LCAO has been a leading voice in the debate on how best to serve America’s senior population—current and future.  This year will be especially busy for the LCAO as 2015 marks Medicare’s 50th anniversary and the 80th anniversary for Social Security.  The White House Conference on Aging is also being held this year with LCAO organizations engaged nationwide and playing a leadership role to ensure seniors’ voices play an important role in the event.

Max Richtman’s one-year chairmanship begins June 3rd.


2705, 2015

Social Security’s 80th Anniversary Celebration

By |May 27th, 2015|Social Security|

The Social Security Administration has created a new website counting down to Social Security’s 80th anniversary this summer. 

Under the tag: “Celebrating the Past and Building the Future” SSA provides beneficiaries and the SSA staffers who serve them, the opportunity to tell their stories. 

According to SSA’s news release:

“The agency also has planned several additional events, such as celebrating “America’s Favorites: Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & SSA” Night that will include a ball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Oakland A’s and at other games around the country.  Stay tuned to the 80th Anniversary website for information on exciting upcoming events as they are planned!

‘As I reflect on our agency’s rich history, I am deeply honored to be a part of such a great organization with employees who truly embody the spirit of passionate public service,’ Acting Commissioner Colvin said.  ‘There is nothing more rewarding than making a difference in the lives of others, and with our collective commitment, there is no limit to what we can achieve.  Happy 80th Anniversary, Social Security!’


2105, 2015

Seniors Tell Congress Medicare Isn’t Your ATM

By |May 21st, 2015|Aging Issues, Budget, Max Richtman, Medicare|

Seniors advocates with the Alliance for Retired Americans and the National Committee joined Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in a press event today to express their opposition to legislation that would cut $700 million from Medicare to pay for a slice of the Trade Deal now being debated in Congress.

“Medicare is not the piggy bank for other programs. We’ve already seen what sequester has meant for the program.  We’ve written to Congress because there’s just not enough awareness on this issue.  Across the board cuts affects the integrity of the Medicare program.” Rich Fiesta, Alliance for Retired Americans Executive Director

“The use of Medicare cuts, 700 million dollars of Medicare cuts, to finance a program totally unrelated to Medicare sets a terrible precedent.  It’s not death by a thousand cuts but that’s where we seem to be headed.  I think it’s interesting that many of the same members of Congress who condemned Obamacare and decried savings in the Medicare program as cuts–savings which were, by the way, plowed right back into the program to provide preventive screenings, close the Part D donut hole and extend the program’s solvency–are now some of the same legislators who want to really cut money from Medicare to pay for an unrelated program.”  Max Richtman, National Committee President/CEO

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Task Force on Seniors are leading the charge against this proposal:

10,000 people a day turn 65.  We should be investing and expanding Medicare not stealing from it.  People have paid into this program and expect it to be there…not to use that to fund anytime we need money to pay for another program…Medicare is not the ATM for everything Congress wants to pay for.  Cutting this social insurance program isn’t the direction we should be going in. Medicare should not be the pay-for for trade deal. The best way to help workers is to stop trade deals that take their jobs…not cut Medicare to fund fixes.” Rep. Jan Shakowsky (D-IL)

“There’s going to be untold riches earned if TPP is enacted into law.  There’s no doubt about that. Great profits will be derived for large international corporations…it seems only logical that the multinationals should fund the costs of the Trade Adjustment Assistance. I can not abide this.  We’ll fight it with everything we have.”  Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Reps. Ellison and Schakowsky say many of their colleagues don’t even realize this Medicare cut was slipped into the Trade Assistance provision.  They’re raising the alarm but hope seniors and their families will also call and email their Members of Congress now since the debate is underway.

You can do that easily from our Leg Action Center.

SEND YOUR EMAIL TODAY!


1905, 2015

Robbing Medicare to Pay for the Trade Deal

By |May 19th, 2015|Budget, healthcare, Max Richtman, Medicare|

Chances are if you’re a regular reader of this blog, the last issue you’d expect to see us write about is the hotly-debated and barely understood TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal.  After all, keeping up with and explaining policy issues impacting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is complicated enough, so yes, we really didn’t plan on wading too deep into the trade deal.  (Although you can read NCPSSM’s take on TPP and drug prices here.)

Unfortunately, that changed this week with news that Congress (with the White House running silent) intends to cut $700 million from the Medicare program to pay for a slice of the trade package.  We talked to Michael Hiltzik the Los Angeles Times about this back-door attack on Medicare:  

“The plan on Capitol Hill is to move the Trade Assistance Program expansion in tandem with fast-track approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, possibly as early as this week. We explained earlier the dangers of the fast-track approval of this immense and largely secret trade deal. But the linkage with the assistance program adds a new layer of political connivance: Congressional Democrats demanded the expansion of the Trade Assistance Program, Congressional Republicans apparently found the money in Medicare, and the Obama White House, which should be howling in protest, has remained silent.

Medicare advocates have taken up the slack by raising the alarm. “To take this cut and apply it to something completely unrelated sets a terrible precedent,” Max Richtman, head of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, told me. 

The Medicare raid was so stealthy that critics in Congress, including members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, are just now gearing up to oppose it. “It was sort of buried” in the bill, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the caucus co-chair, told me Monday.”

Funding the Trade Assistance Program is necessary to help Americans workers expected to lose their jobs because of this trade deal receive job training and assistance.  However, telling American workers they have to trade away health care benefits in their retirement in order to get job training when they lose their job now is incredibly mercenary, even by Washington standards.

This isn’t the first time Medicare has been Congress’ piggy bank. This move follows last year’s vote to extend the Medicare sequester cuts into 2024 to cover a reversal of cost-of-living cuts to veterans’ pension benefits.  Shifting Medicare funds to other programs seems to be Congress’ new go-to budget approach.  That’s pretty ironic given that the GOP has spent millions of campaign dollars claiming Obamacare cut Medicare benefits (which is didn’t):

“This is different from the $700-billion cost reduction in Medicare enacted via the Affordable Care Act. That includes efforts to make the program more efficient by improving the incentives governing how doctors and hospitals deliver care to their patients, along with reductions in payments to Medicare Advantage plans. Richtman points out that much of this amounts to a reallocation within Medicare — “it’s piled back into the program by paying for improvements in preventive care, closing the ‘doughnut’ hole in Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit)” and other measures. In the broadest sense, the cost reductions in Medicare are netted against other healthcare costs within the Affordable Care Act.

By contrast, the new proposal would take $700 million out of Medicare, period. Nothing in the TAA will help Medicare function better, augment its services to members, or cover healthcare costs. Slicing into physician and hospital reimbursements may have the opposite effect, by reducing members’ access to care. “I’d characterize this as money stolen from Medicare,” Richtman says.”

We recommend you read Michael Hiltzik’s entire story at the Los Angeles Times


1305, 2015

Social Security Privatization: Then and Now

By |May 13th, 2015|Aging Issues, Boost Social Security, entitlement reform, Max Richtman, Social Security|

Orginally published in Huffington Post.

by Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

About this time ten years ago it was becoming clear that President George Bush’s plan to forever change Social Security by turning the program over to Wall Street was on the ropes.  Even though his Social Security privatization road tour still had two more months of scheduled stops, the more the President talked about his plan, the less people liked it.  Gallup reported disapproval of privatizing Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent between the President’s State of the Union address and June. It was an incredibly risky and unpopular idea that rapidly flat-lined thanks to the overwhelming rejection by the public.  Yet here we are a decade later and conservatives campaigning for Congress and the White House are resuscitating the Bush strategy by offering up approaches to Social Security which are stark reminders that the GOP playbook really hasn’t changed that much.

What Else Has NOT Changed

Americans of all ages, political parties and income levels, continue to oppose cutting Social Security benefits through privatization or other means.  They understand the retirement crisis is real. A recent Gallup poll reports more non-retirees believe Social Security will be a major source of income in their retirement now than at any point in the last 15 years. The National Academy of Social Insurance’s survey, “Americans Make Hard Choices on Social Security” shows that Americans’ support for Social Security is unparalleled and they are willing to pay more in taxes to stabilize the system’s finances and improve benefits. Seven out of 10 participants prefer a package that would eliminate Social Security’s long-term financing gap without cutting benefits.

Even though Americans clearly understand the value of Social Security and are willing to pay more to strengthen it, Republicans in Congress and GOP candidates for President continue to push for Social Security cuts and/or privatization plans. Governor Chris Christie may have hoped savaging the program would give him the attention and conservative credentials needed to revive his flagging poll numbers before announcing his Presidential campaign against a roster of other candidates who already offered their own plans to cut Social Security benefits.  The GOP Presidential primary has become a race to see who can deny more benefits for seniors, people with disabilities, survivors and their families faster.  While cutting benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid isn’t really new among conservatives, what has changed in the decade since the Democrats led the charge against Social Security privatization is how some Democrats are now talking about these vital programs in the language of the conservatives.

Why Opposing Privatization Isn’t Enough

During the last decade I’ve observed a growing willingness by some Democrats to buy into the conservative mythology that targeting average Americans for benefit cuts makes them more “honest” and “courageous” than other politicians.  This Republican talking point is built on the false premise that supporting successful federal programs which keep millions of Americans economically and medically secure is “pandering to seniors” while supporting billionaire tax breaks and corporate giveaways costing the federal treasury billions of dollars is “fiscal responsibility.”

Ten years ago Democrats were united in their opposition to Social Security privatization.  That’s still largely true today; however, given the lessons of the past decade, opposing privatization simply isn’t enough to convince constituents that their benefits are fully protected.  The broader questions voters should ask incumbents and candidates alike include: Do they support benefit cuts in any other form such as the Chained CPI, raising the retirement age, and means testing? Do they support the failed Bowles-Simpson plan which would have done all of these things? Do they support the reallocation of trust fund monies to avoid a 20 percent cut to Social Security disability benefits? The answers to these questions can reveal the truth about a candidate’s vision for the future of Social Security and the generations of Americans who have earned their benefits. “I oppose privatization” was enough ten years ago but it doesn’t tell us whether an incumbent has been a Social Security defender or benefit cuts collaborator in the many battles since then.

While it’s safe for Democrats to declare their opposition to privatization, the bolder step they need to make in this politically charged benefit-cuts environment is to demand that any Social Security conversation must address benefit adequacy as well as long-term solvency.  It’s clear that the majority in Congress has little interest in protecting this program even though our nation faces a retirement crisis leaving the average working household with virtually no retirement savings. The truth is Congress should Boost Social Security benefits not cut them.  That’s a position that demonstrates true political leadership.  Not because it’s unrealistic or opportunistic, as the billion dollar anti-Social Security lobby would like you to believe, but because it pushes back against a decade long quest to cut Social Security benefits as the next best thing to privatization. “Death by a thousand cuts” is a political goal the American people simply can not afford nor should they have to. We have Democratic and Independent leaders in Congress who understand this and they support legislation to improve Social Security benefits. The National Committee has endorsed numerous pieces of legislation that would enhance Social Security, boost benefits, lift the payroll tax cap and adopt the more accurate consumer price index for the elderly (CPI-E).  Proposals like the Social Security 2100 Act not only improve benefits but also extend Social Security’s long-term solvency.

I believe the old truism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. When Democrats were unified in representing the American people’s views on Social Security they were on the correct side of the issue from both a policy and political perspective.  Defeating the privatization of Social Security saved millions of Americans from an even worse economic fate than they already suffered through during the great recession. Current and future Democratic lawmakers now have an opportunity to do the right thing again by joining the growing Boost Social Security movement and supporting legislation which would improve benefits while also strengthening the program’s long-term outlook.


National Seniors’ Coalition Transfers Chairmanship to NCPSSM

By |June 3rd, 2015|Max Richtman|

NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, Assumes Chairmanship of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations

“For too many years our nation’s most successful retirement and health security programs have been under almost constant assault by those who hope to cut these programs to pay for a myriad of other purposes – from tax cuts and deficit reduction to trade deals.  These attacks come at a time when 10,000 Americans turn 65 each day, our nation faces a retirement crisis and the need for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Older Americans Act programs is growing. With so much at stake and a stormy political climate ahead, the National Committee is proud to take over the leadership of the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations continuing the LCAO’s important work on behalf of America’s seniors. We’re at a critical time in history and the LCAO will lead the effort to strengthen programs seniors and their families depend on.”…Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

The 72 senior advocacy groups that comprise the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations have spent decades educating and advocating on behalf of the nation’s senior citizens.  From Social Security to long-term care issues, the LCAO has been a leading voice in the debate on how best to serve America’s senior population—current and future.  This year will be especially busy for the LCAO as 2015 marks Medicare’s 50th anniversary and the 80th anniversary for Social Security.  The White House Conference on Aging is also being held this year with LCAO organizations engaged nationwide and playing a leadership role to ensure seniors’ voices play an important role in the event.

Max Richtman’s one-year chairmanship begins June 3rd.


Social Security’s 80th Anniversary Celebration

By |May 27th, 2015|Social Security|

The Social Security Administration has created a new website counting down to Social Security’s 80th anniversary this summer. 

Under the tag: “Celebrating the Past and Building the Future” SSA provides beneficiaries and the SSA staffers who serve them, the opportunity to tell their stories. 

According to SSA’s news release:

“The agency also has planned several additional events, such as celebrating “America’s Favorites: Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & SSA” Night that will include a ball game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Oakland A’s and at other games around the country.  Stay tuned to the 80th Anniversary website for information on exciting upcoming events as they are planned!

‘As I reflect on our agency’s rich history, I am deeply honored to be a part of such a great organization with employees who truly embody the spirit of passionate public service,’ Acting Commissioner Colvin said.  ‘There is nothing more rewarding than making a difference in the lives of others, and with our collective commitment, there is no limit to what we can achieve.  Happy 80th Anniversary, Social Security!’


Seniors Tell Congress Medicare Isn’t Your ATM

By |May 21st, 2015|Aging Issues, Budget, Max Richtman, Medicare|

Seniors advocates with the Alliance for Retired Americans and the National Committee joined Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in a press event today to express their opposition to legislation that would cut $700 million from Medicare to pay for a slice of the Trade Deal now being debated in Congress.

“Medicare is not the piggy bank for other programs. We’ve already seen what sequester has meant for the program.  We’ve written to Congress because there’s just not enough awareness on this issue.  Across the board cuts affects the integrity of the Medicare program.” Rich Fiesta, Alliance for Retired Americans Executive Director

“The use of Medicare cuts, 700 million dollars of Medicare cuts, to finance a program totally unrelated to Medicare sets a terrible precedent.  It’s not death by a thousand cuts but that’s where we seem to be headed.  I think it’s interesting that many of the same members of Congress who condemned Obamacare and decried savings in the Medicare program as cuts–savings which were, by the way, plowed right back into the program to provide preventive screenings, close the Part D donut hole and extend the program’s solvency–are now some of the same legislators who want to really cut money from Medicare to pay for an unrelated program.”  Max Richtman, National Committee President/CEO

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Task Force on Seniors are leading the charge against this proposal:

10,000 people a day turn 65.  We should be investing and expanding Medicare not stealing from it.  People have paid into this program and expect it to be there…not to use that to fund anytime we need money to pay for another program…Medicare is not the ATM for everything Congress wants to pay for.  Cutting this social insurance program isn’t the direction we should be going in. Medicare should not be the pay-for for trade deal. The best way to help workers is to stop trade deals that take their jobs…not cut Medicare to fund fixes.” Rep. Jan Shakowsky (D-IL)

“There’s going to be untold riches earned if TPP is enacted into law.  There’s no doubt about that. Great profits will be derived for large international corporations…it seems only logical that the multinationals should fund the costs of the Trade Adjustment Assistance. I can not abide this.  We’ll fight it with everything we have.”  Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Reps. Ellison and Schakowsky say many of their colleagues don’t even realize this Medicare cut was slipped into the Trade Assistance provision.  They’re raising the alarm but hope seniors and their families will also call and email their Members of Congress now since the debate is underway.

You can do that easily from our Leg Action Center.

SEND YOUR EMAIL TODAY!


Robbing Medicare to Pay for the Trade Deal

By |May 19th, 2015|Budget, healthcare, Max Richtman, Medicare|

Chances are if you’re a regular reader of this blog, the last issue you’d expect to see us write about is the hotly-debated and barely understood TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal.  After all, keeping up with and explaining policy issues impacting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is complicated enough, so yes, we really didn’t plan on wading too deep into the trade deal.  (Although you can read NCPSSM’s take on TPP and drug prices here.)

Unfortunately, that changed this week with news that Congress (with the White House running silent) intends to cut $700 million from the Medicare program to pay for a slice of the trade package.  We talked to Michael Hiltzik the Los Angeles Times about this back-door attack on Medicare:  

“The plan on Capitol Hill is to move the Trade Assistance Program expansion in tandem with fast-track approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, possibly as early as this week. We explained earlier the dangers of the fast-track approval of this immense and largely secret trade deal. But the linkage with the assistance program adds a new layer of political connivance: Congressional Democrats demanded the expansion of the Trade Assistance Program, Congressional Republicans apparently found the money in Medicare, and the Obama White House, which should be howling in protest, has remained silent.

Medicare advocates have taken up the slack by raising the alarm. “To take this cut and apply it to something completely unrelated sets a terrible precedent,” Max Richtman, head of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, told me. 

The Medicare raid was so stealthy that critics in Congress, including members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, are just now gearing up to oppose it. “It was sort of buried” in the bill, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the caucus co-chair, told me Monday.”

Funding the Trade Assistance Program is necessary to help Americans workers expected to lose their jobs because of this trade deal receive job training and assistance.  However, telling American workers they have to trade away health care benefits in their retirement in order to get job training when they lose their job now is incredibly mercenary, even by Washington standards.

This isn’t the first time Medicare has been Congress’ piggy bank. This move follows last year’s vote to extend the Medicare sequester cuts into 2024 to cover a reversal of cost-of-living cuts to veterans’ pension benefits.  Shifting Medicare funds to other programs seems to be Congress’ new go-to budget approach.  That’s pretty ironic given that the GOP has spent millions of campaign dollars claiming Obamacare cut Medicare benefits (which is didn’t):

“This is different from the $700-billion cost reduction in Medicare enacted via the Affordable Care Act. That includes efforts to make the program more efficient by improving the incentives governing how doctors and hospitals deliver care to their patients, along with reductions in payments to Medicare Advantage plans. Richtman points out that much of this amounts to a reallocation within Medicare — “it’s piled back into the program by paying for improvements in preventive care, closing the ‘doughnut’ hole in Medicare Part D (the prescription drug benefit)” and other measures. In the broadest sense, the cost reductions in Medicare are netted against other healthcare costs within the Affordable Care Act.

By contrast, the new proposal would take $700 million out of Medicare, period. Nothing in the TAA will help Medicare function better, augment its services to members, or cover healthcare costs. Slicing into physician and hospital reimbursements may have the opposite effect, by reducing members’ access to care. “I’d characterize this as money stolen from Medicare,” Richtman says.”

We recommend you read Michael Hiltzik’s entire story at the Los Angeles Times


Social Security Privatization: Then and Now

By |May 13th, 2015|Aging Issues, Boost Social Security, entitlement reform, Max Richtman, Social Security|

Orginally published in Huffington Post.

by Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

About this time ten years ago it was becoming clear that President George Bush’s plan to forever change Social Security by turning the program over to Wall Street was on the ropes.  Even though his Social Security privatization road tour still had two more months of scheduled stops, the more the President talked about his plan, the less people liked it.  Gallup reported disapproval of privatizing Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent between the President’s State of the Union address and June. It was an incredibly risky and unpopular idea that rapidly flat-lined thanks to the overwhelming rejection by the public.  Yet here we are a decade later and conservatives campaigning for Congress and the White House are resuscitating the Bush strategy by offering up approaches to Social Security which are stark reminders that the GOP playbook really hasn’t changed that much.

What Else Has NOT Changed

Americans of all ages, political parties and income levels, continue to oppose cutting Social Security benefits through privatization or other means.  They understand the retirement crisis is real. A recent Gallup poll reports more non-retirees believe Social Security will be a major source of income in their retirement now than at any point in the last 15 years. The National Academy of Social Insurance’s survey, “Americans Make Hard Choices on Social Security” shows that Americans’ support for Social Security is unparalleled and they are willing to pay more in taxes to stabilize the system’s finances and improve benefits. Seven out of 10 participants prefer a package that would eliminate Social Security’s long-term financing gap without cutting benefits.

Even though Americans clearly understand the value of Social Security and are willing to pay more to strengthen it, Republicans in Congress and GOP candidates for President continue to push for Social Security cuts and/or privatization plans. Governor Chris Christie may have hoped savaging the program would give him the attention and conservative credentials needed to revive his flagging poll numbers before announcing his Presidential campaign against a roster of other candidates who already offered their own plans to cut Social Security benefits.  The GOP Presidential primary has become a race to see who can deny more benefits for seniors, people with disabilities, survivors and their families faster.  While cutting benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid isn’t really new among conservatives, what has changed in the decade since the Democrats led the charge against Social Security privatization is how some Democrats are now talking about these vital programs in the language of the conservatives.

Why Opposing Privatization Isn’t Enough

During the last decade I’ve observed a growing willingness by some Democrats to buy into the conservative mythology that targeting average Americans for benefit cuts makes them more “honest” and “courageous” than other politicians.  This Republican talking point is built on the false premise that supporting successful federal programs which keep millions of Americans economically and medically secure is “pandering to seniors” while supporting billionaire tax breaks and corporate giveaways costing the federal treasury billions of dollars is “fiscal responsibility.”

Ten years ago Democrats were united in their opposition to Social Security privatization.  That’s still largely true today; however, given the lessons of the past decade, opposing privatization simply isn’t enough to convince constituents that their benefits are fully protected.  The broader questions voters should ask incumbents and candidates alike include: Do they support benefit cuts in any other form such as the Chained CPI, raising the retirement age, and means testing? Do they support the failed Bowles-Simpson plan which would have done all of these things? Do they support the reallocation of trust fund monies to avoid a 20 percent cut to Social Security disability benefits? The answers to these questions can reveal the truth about a candidate’s vision for the future of Social Security and the generations of Americans who have earned their benefits. “I oppose privatization” was enough ten years ago but it doesn’t tell us whether an incumbent has been a Social Security defender or benefit cuts collaborator in the many battles since then.

While it’s safe for Democrats to declare their opposition to privatization, the bolder step they need to make in this politically charged benefit-cuts environment is to demand that any Social Security conversation must address benefit adequacy as well as long-term solvency.  It’s clear that the majority in Congress has little interest in protecting this program even though our nation faces a retirement crisis leaving the average working household with virtually no retirement savings. The truth is Congress should Boost Social Security benefits not cut them.  That’s a position that demonstrates true political leadership.  Not because it’s unrealistic or opportunistic, as the billion dollar anti-Social Security lobby would like you to believe, but because it pushes back against a decade long quest to cut Social Security benefits as the next best thing to privatization. “Death by a thousand cuts” is a political goal the American people simply can not afford nor should they have to. We have Democratic and Independent leaders in Congress who understand this and they support legislation to improve Social Security benefits. The National Committee has endorsed numerous pieces of legislation that would enhance Social Security, boost benefits, lift the payroll tax cap and adopt the more accurate consumer price index for the elderly (CPI-E).  Proposals like the Social Security 2100 Act not only improve benefits but also extend Social Security’s long-term solvency.

I believe the old truism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. When Democrats were unified in representing the American people’s views on Social Security they were on the correct side of the issue from both a policy and political perspective.  Defeating the privatization of Social Security saved millions of Americans from an even worse economic fate than they already suffered through during the great recession. Current and future Democratic lawmakers now have an opportunity to do the right thing again by joining the growing Boost Social Security movement and supporting legislation which would improve benefits while also strengthening the program’s long-term outlook.



Go to Top