Bloomberg Analysis Frames Social Security and Medicare as Debt Reduction Issues. That’s Misleading.
Fiscal conservatives continue to promote the narrative that Social Security and Medicare must be “reformed” to reduce the federal debt, which basically means cutting seniors’ earned benefits. The latest foray in this propaganda campaign came in the form of an ‘analysis’ piece from Bloomberg’s Karl W. Smith, published last week in the Washington Post.
“The financial stakes are high. Rapidly rising interest rates means now is the time to act, before the burden of servicing the debt to fund these programs becomes a major barrier to deficit reduction.” – Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg/Washington Post, 11/21/22
The focus on deficits and debt reduction is misleading. Social Security and Medicare Part A are self-funded by workers’ payroll contributions and do not contribute to the debt. In fact, the biggest driver of the federal debt is ‘tax expenditures,’ with the 2017 Trump/GOP tax cuts as a prime example.
But conservatives claiming to be concerned about the debt never object to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations. Yet, they frame Social Security and Medicare as contributors to the debt and deficit instead of what they are: programs that provide financial and health security for tens of millions of older Americans.
The go-to solution, for Smith and others, is benefit cuts:
“The GOP wants to mitigate these costs by, among other things, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to match the Social Security retirement age, which is 67 for those born after 1960. In addition, Republicans would reduce Social Security benefits for those whose income was on the high end over their lifetimes and raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries with higher incomes.” – Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg/Washington Post, 11/21/22
Raising the eligibility age for Medicare would leave tens of millions of seniors without insurance. (Republicans have also proposed changing the Social Security full retirement age from 67 to 70.) These are benefit reductions, plain and simple. Meanwhile, means testing Social Security in the way that Smith suggests would change the fundamental nature of the program, which has been working just fine for more than 80 years as a compact between workers and the federal government. In fact, a recent means testing proposal would have reduced Social Security benefits for people with average annual earnings of only $49,000.
It’s true that Social Security and Medicare face financing challenges that Congress must address. The Social Security Trustees project that, absent congressional action, the old age and disability trust fund will become depleted in 2035, with the Medicare Part A trust fund at risk of running out in 2028. Democrats have proposed (and in the case of Medicare, enacted) legislation to bring more revenue into both programs. But most Republicans refuse to consider revenue-based solutions, preferring to cut benefits. (Key members of the GOP proposed several drastic measures that would undermine Social Security and Medicare during the mid-term campaign season.)
Exhortations to cut benefits are part of a well-funded, right-leaning ideological movement to oppose government social programs, no matter how successful or popular. Not surprisingly, the author of the Bloomberg/Post analysis is previous Vice President of the Tax Foundation, whose “major funders include the conservative Koch Family Foundation and the foundation of the late Richard Scaife, a billionaire known as ‘the funding father of the right,’” according to Mother Jones.
Smith observes that “Republicans hoped that Americans would deliver a clear repudiation of President Biden’s economic policies when they went to the polls (in November).” But those hopes were dashed. Instead, voters in many states and districts rejected Republican, supply-side economics. Members of Congress would be wiser to listen to the voters – who support Social Security and Medicare by large, bipartisan majorities – than to columnists who preach austerity for the programs that protect our most vulnerable citizens.
Speaker Pelosi’s Legacy Includes Historic Legislation for Seniors
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who declared Thursday that she will not seek a leadership position in the next Congress, has been lauded as a master of legislative procedure, a unifier of her caucus, a skilled tactician – and as someone who broke the “marble ceiling” for women in the halls of Congress.
“Nancy Pelosi steps down as the most accomplished congressional leader of her era, and probably the most successful House speaker of all time in terms of legislative impact.” – Washington Post, 11/17/22
No small part of Pelosi’s legislative legacy are the many bills that Pelosi, 82, shepherded through Congress to improve older Americans’ health and well-being. In her valedictory speech on the House floor, she wove seniors’ programs into a grand vision of congressional legacy:
“In this room, our colleagues across history have abolished slavery; granted women the right to vote; established Social Security and Medicare; offered a hand to the weak, care to the sick, education to the young and hope to the many.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 11/17/22
Speaker Pelosi guided the Inflation Reduction Act through the House, which finally allows Medicare to negotiate prices with drug-makers (although the number of drugs subject to negotiation is limited). The Inflation Reduction Act also capped Medicare beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 per year and limited their insulin costs to $35 a month – long-awaited steps to reduce seniors’ health care costs.
In 2010, Speaker Pelosi was indispensable to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, which has provided health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured – including many “near seniors” previously priced out of the market. The ACA also benefitted Medicare patients. It included wellness check-ups at no cost and eliminated cost-sharing for most preventive services.
As Speaker Pelosi remarked upon the 10th anniversary of the ACA in 2020:
“The Affordable Care Act stands today among the greatest pillars of American health and financial security: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Affordable Care Act.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 3/23/20
Her stepping down as leader of the Democratic party in the House represents a passing of the torch to younger leaders. “The hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic Caucus that I so deeply respect. And I am grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.”
The presumed frontrunners for a new leadership slate include Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) for Speaker, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) for Minority Whip, and Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) for House Democratic Caucus chair. NCPSSM President and CEO Max Richtman says that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare “looks forward to a close working relationship on issues vital to America’s seniors with whomever emerges as the next Democratic leadership team in the U.S. House.”
NCPSSM-Endorsed Candidates Prevail in Mid-Terms
As the country awaits full election results, The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare congratulates the many seniors’ champions who prevailed in key races across the nation. More than 70 of the candidates who the National Committee enthusiastically endorsed have emerged victorious in crucial House and the Senate contests.
“These wins represent a resounding rejection of MAGA-nomics by voters in bellwether districts and states. While clearly concerned about inflation, these voters have said ‘No’ to more tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful corporations – and no to cuts in workers’ Social Security and Medicare benefits, including reducing COLAs or raising the eligibility ages for both programs.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM President and CEO, 11/9/22
Here are a few of the candidates NCPSSM endorsed who won election to the 118th Congress:
Sen.-elect Jon Fetterman (PA)
Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)*
Sen. Michael Bennett (CO)
Sen. Maggie Hassan (NH)
Rep. Dan Kildee (MI)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH)
Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA)
Rep.-elect Seth Magaziner (RI)
*not called yet
Current projections are that Republicans will win a slim House majority, while control of the Senate hinges on the outcome of races that have yet to be called – and possibly on a runoff race in Georgia. A House majority would give Republicans an opportunity to try to force through some of their proposals that jeopardize Americans’ earned benefits.
Key Republican leaders have threatened to use the inevitable battle over raising the nation’s debt limit in 2023 to compel the White House and Democrats to accept cuts to Social Security and Medicare. “The debt ceiling wrangling will be the biggest risk,” says Maria Freese, senior policy analyst at NCPSSM.
During the 2022 campaign, President Biden promised to fight any attempts to undermine seniors’ earned benefits, but Freese says that he will be under “tremendous pressure” from the GOP to make a deal, in order to forestall the nation from defaulting on its debts.
“If Republicans do control the House, seniors will be counting on President Biden to be a bulwark against harmful changes to Social Security and Medicare, beginning with the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. As the President said, ‘GOP leaders have vowed to crash the economy by putting the U.S. in default unless we yield to their demand to cut Social Security and Medicare.’” – Max Richtman, 11/09/22
In his first post-election news conference on November 9th, President Biden pledged once again to defend the nation’s two most important social insurance programs:
“Under no circumstances will I agree to cut or make fundamental changes to Social Security and Medicare. It’s not on the table. I will NOT do that.” – President Biden, 11/9/22
During the mid-term campaign, key Republicans said they want to “save” Social Security and Medicare, but their proposals beg the question: at what cost to the very people who depend on those programs? The 2022 House Republican Study Committee blueprint called for raising the retirement age to 70, reducing COLAs, and cutting benefits for “high earners,” an odd characterization since the cuts eventually could extend to workers earning $40,000 per year.
“Anyone who says they’re going to ‘save’ Social Security but refuses to bring more revenue into the program is really talking benefit cuts for the heart of the middle class,” says Freese.
NCPSSM President and CEO Max Richtman calls on seniors and their families not to take anything for granted – and continue to remind their elected representatives that they insist Social Security and Medicare be protected:
“There are multiple ways to reach out to members of Congress – to remind our elected leaders that after a deadly pandemic that took a huge toll on seniors, the soaring cost of retirement, and ongoing wealth inequality, Americans depend on Social Security and Medicare to retire with dignity now more than ever.” – Max Richtman, 11/09/22
NCPSSM Makes Final Endorsements of 2022 Cycle, Emphasizing GOP Threats to Social Security and Medicare
As the midterm campaign draws to a close with the future of Social Security and Medicare possibly at stake, NCPSSM has been completing its final round of candidate endorsement events around the country. Today in Charlotte, North Carolina, NCPSSM legislative director and PAC coordinator Dan Adcock formally endorsed Democrat Cheri Beasley for U.S. Senate in one of the pivotal swing state races of this election cycle.
Adcock presented Beasley with the National Committee’s signature boxing gloves, symbolizing that she is a “champion” for seniors in North Carolina. Beasley, the former Chief Justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, is running against Republican congressman Ted Budd for the seat currently held by GOP Sen. Richard Burr. The outcome of this race could determine who controls the Senate come January.
“Cheri Beasley will protect and improve Social Security. Her opponent voted for a budget proposal that would have cut COLAs and raised the retirement age to 70. Cheri Beasley will protect and improve Medicare. Ted Budd voted to privatize Medicare for the benefit of insurance companies.” – NCPSSM legislative director and PAC coordinator Dan Adcock, Charlotte, NC, 11/4/22
The National Committee has endorsed nearly 100 candidates across the U.S. for House and Senate this year. On Thursday, NCPSSM president Max Richtman was in Bay City, MI, endorsing Rep. Dan Kildee (D-IL) for re-election to the U.S. House, pronouncing him the “Rocky Balboa” for older Michiganders.
“Every step of the way, Dan Kildee has made the right call. He voted dozens of times to protect the Affordable Care Act while Republicans were hellbent on overturning it, stripping Michiganders with pre-existing conditions of their health care coverage and kicking millions off of Medicaid. And since Representative Kildee first took office, he has been a leader in the fight to improve Social Security and Medicare and reduce health care costs.” – Max Richtman, 11/3/22
Richtman also commended Rep. Kildee for his leadership on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, saying it’s important that he remain in that role to help protect senior’s earned benefits.
On Saturday, Richtman will be in Ohio to throw the National Committee’s support behind U.S. Rep Tim Ryan (D-OH) in his bid to defeat Republican J.D. Vance for the seat being vacated by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH). While key Republicans have proposed harmful proposals for seniors’ earned benefits, Vance appears to have moderated his stance about Social Security and Medicare since running for this seat:
“His Democratic opponent, Rep. Tim Ryan, has criticized Vance for a 2010 blog post that described Social Security and Medicare among the largest drivers of the deficit. But Vance has since downplayed the need for changes to the programs.” – Bloomberg Government, 10/31/22
Meanwhile, Rep. Ryan has been a staunch ally of seniors in the U.S. Congress and earned a 100% rating on NCPSSM’s legislative scorecard. He has fought back against efforts to cut and privatize Social Security and Medicare – and “has supported legislation that would put more money in seniors’ pockets by increasing benefits, cutting taxes, and ensuring that Social Security keeps up with the rising cost of living.” Ryan also supports strengthening and expanding Medicare.
The mid-term election has become an existential threat for the nation’s two main social insurance programs for seniors, with Republicans openly proposing to cut, privatize, or jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. President Biden couldn’t have put it more plainly during a speech in Florida this week:
“You’ve been paying into (these programs) your whole life. You earned it. Now these guys want to take it away. Who in the hell do they think they are?” – President Biden, 11/1/22
NCPSSM has been calling on senior voters to cast ballots in their own interest, emphasizing that the GOP is not worthy of their trust on these issues – and that Republicans have no productive plans for addressing high priority items like inflation and gas prices. As Los Angeles Times Michael Hiltzik columnist recently wrote in a piece entitled, Republicans Keep Harping on Inflation, But Don’t Have Any Answers for It: “Proposals to diminish seniors’ benefits in any way would make it even harder for older Americans to cope with today’s economic difficulties.”
On Tuesday, voters will have an opportunity to protect their financial and health security – or take a risky step toward losing the programs that have ensured those very things for generations.
Let’s Protect Social Security & Medicare On November 8th
It is no exaggeration to say that the nation’s two most important programs for seniors—Social Security and Medicare—are on the line in this November’s elections. This is not a matter of nuance; it’s truly existential. Whichever party controls Congress will influence whether Social Security and Medicare will continue as we know them—or be weakened and privatized. The outcome depends largely on how older Americans—who cast ballots more reliably than any other age group—vote in 2022.
For seniors, the stakes could not be higher, nor the choice clearer. “The Social Security you paid for from the time you had a job is on the ballot. Your right to vote is on the ballot. Even the democracy. Are you ready to fight for these things now?” said President Joe Biden at an August rally in Maryland.
The president was not exaggerating. Democrats have made earnest efforts to boost Social Security and Medicare in the 117th Congress—and to shore up the finances of both programs. They have introduced legislation in both the House and Senate to strengthen Social Security and expand benefits. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which should significantly lower seniors’ prescription drug costs, with zero Republican support. Meanwhile, GOP members of Congress, who for years have mouthed general support for Social Security and Medicare, are now saying the quiet part out loud: They propose to break the fundamental promises of both programs.
You have to give Republicans credit for political brazenness, though perhaps recklessness is a better word. During an election year, Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), chair of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the Senate, proposed a plan where Social Security and Medicare would have to be renewed every five years by Congress—putting both programs on a path toward steep budget cuts, if not outright elimination. Scott’s proposal garnered significant backlash, but that did not stop Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) from saying a few months later that Social Security and Medicare should be considered “discretionary” spending, placing seniors’ benefits at the mercy of the Congressional budget process every year.
Some Republican candidates for Congress have followed this path off the political cliff. As NBC News reported, “In major Senate and House races across the country, GOP candidates have called for cutting long-term Social Security spending to tackle inflation and resolve the program’s finances.” In Arizona, a state with one of the largest populations of retirees in the country, GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters endorsed the idea of gambling seniors’ earned benefits on the stock market. “Maybe we should privatize Social Security, right? Private retirement accounts, get the government out of it,” he said. Privatization is a terrible idea and a largely unpopular one, but conservative idealogues continue to push policies that are great for Wall Street, but harmful to seniors on fixed incomes.
Last June, the House Republican Study Committee’s budget blueprint included raising Social Security’s full retirement age—a massive benefit cut that ignores the fact that although some people are living longer, many are not able to continue working until age 70. The full retirement age has already been raised to 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later. Workers claiming Social Security before their full retirement age face reduced monthly benefits for life. Nearly half of retirees rely on Social Security for all or most of their income. The last thing they need is another increase in the retirement age—though this is one of the most popular ideas in Republican circles.
Social Security and Medicare are Democratic legacies, enacted by Democratic majorities in Congress and signed into law by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively. Democrats realize that both programs face financing challenges. Social Security’s combined trust fund is projected to become depleted by 2035 if Congress fails to take preventative action. The Medicare Part A trust fund will run out in 2028 without congressional help. While Republicans want future seniors to bear the burden of shoring up Social Security’s finances, Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), among others, champion solutions that produce more revenue, such as asking the wealthy to contribute their fair share in payroll taxes—allowing an actual boost in benefits.
Social Security and Medicare are not the only issues affecting seniors, who bore much of the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic both in terms of lives lost and personal finances drained. The rising cost of health care, housing, and long-term care represent serious challenges that must be solved. But conservatives oppose any tax increases for the wealthy or profitable corporations that might help address these challenges. The GOP’s blind faith in the private sector to solve seniors’ problems has proven woefully misplaced. On the most important issues affecting seniors, Democrats are on seniors’ side.
Unfortunately, seniors have not always voted in their own interests. Voters over 65 went for Donald Trump by four to five points in the 2020 presidential election, despite Trump’s repeated attempts to break his 2016 campaign promise “not to touch” Social Security and Medicare. A poll released in August showed Republicans with a 15-point lead over Democrats among seniors in the upcoming midterms. In fact, seniors as a voting bloc have favored the GOP in every midterm election since 2002.
Political analysts note that seniors have gravitated toward Republicans because of cultural issues, rather than voting in their best economic interests. That’s a raw deal for older voters, says former Fox News commentator Juan Williams: “Republicans did not reward those voters with backing for social safety net programs for seniors – Social Security and Medicare. And they are not backing legislation to cut the cost of prescription drugs.”
With tens of millions of older Americans relying on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs, seniors cannot afford to unconditionally support the party of Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, or Arizona’s Blake Masters. It’s important that older voters know where their candidates truly stand on these vital programs. Seniors should attend town halls with their elected representatives, consume news from credible sources, assess candidates’ actual positions, and cast their ballots wisely. They also can consult our Voters Guide, which rates members of Congress according to their votes on these crucial issues.
Will voters allow the reversal of decades of progress for seniors, the disabled, children and other Americans at risk? Or will we continue to build on the foundation that previous generations put in place to create a more just and equitable society that looks out for its most vulnerable citizens? Seniors, more than any other voting bloc, have the power to answer that question this November—and are among the voters with the most to win or lose.
Max Richtman is president and CEO of the nonprofit National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. He is former staff director of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Bloomberg Analysis Frames Social Security and Medicare as Debt Reduction Issues. That’s Misleading.
Fiscal conservatives continue to promote the narrative that Social Security and Medicare must be “reformed” to reduce the federal debt, which basically means cutting seniors’ earned benefits. The latest foray in this propaganda campaign came in the form of an ‘analysis’ piece from Bloomberg’s Karl W. Smith, published last week in the Washington Post.
“The financial stakes are high. Rapidly rising interest rates means now is the time to act, before the burden of servicing the debt to fund these programs becomes a major barrier to deficit reduction.” – Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg/Washington Post, 11/21/22
The focus on deficits and debt reduction is misleading. Social Security and Medicare Part A are self-funded by workers’ payroll contributions and do not contribute to the debt. In fact, the biggest driver of the federal debt is ‘tax expenditures,’ with the 2017 Trump/GOP tax cuts as a prime example.
But conservatives claiming to be concerned about the debt never object to tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations. Yet, they frame Social Security and Medicare as contributors to the debt and deficit instead of what they are: programs that provide financial and health security for tens of millions of older Americans.
The go-to solution, for Smith and others, is benefit cuts:
“The GOP wants to mitigate these costs by, among other things, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to match the Social Security retirement age, which is 67 for those born after 1960. In addition, Republicans would reduce Social Security benefits for those whose income was on the high end over their lifetimes and raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries with higher incomes.” – Karl W. Smith, Bloomberg/Washington Post, 11/21/22
Raising the eligibility age for Medicare would leave tens of millions of seniors without insurance. (Republicans have also proposed changing the Social Security full retirement age from 67 to 70.) These are benefit reductions, plain and simple. Meanwhile, means testing Social Security in the way that Smith suggests would change the fundamental nature of the program, which has been working just fine for more than 80 years as a compact between workers and the federal government. In fact, a recent means testing proposal would have reduced Social Security benefits for people with average annual earnings of only $49,000.
It’s true that Social Security and Medicare face financing challenges that Congress must address. The Social Security Trustees project that, absent congressional action, the old age and disability trust fund will become depleted in 2035, with the Medicare Part A trust fund at risk of running out in 2028. Democrats have proposed (and in the case of Medicare, enacted) legislation to bring more revenue into both programs. But most Republicans refuse to consider revenue-based solutions, preferring to cut benefits. (Key members of the GOP proposed several drastic measures that would undermine Social Security and Medicare during the mid-term campaign season.)
Exhortations to cut benefits are part of a well-funded, right-leaning ideological movement to oppose government social programs, no matter how successful or popular. Not surprisingly, the author of the Bloomberg/Post analysis is previous Vice President of the Tax Foundation, whose “major funders include the conservative Koch Family Foundation and the foundation of the late Richard Scaife, a billionaire known as ‘the funding father of the right,’” according to Mother Jones.
Smith observes that “Republicans hoped that Americans would deliver a clear repudiation of President Biden’s economic policies when they went to the polls (in November).” But those hopes were dashed. Instead, voters in many states and districts rejected Republican, supply-side economics. Members of Congress would be wiser to listen to the voters – who support Social Security and Medicare by large, bipartisan majorities – than to columnists who preach austerity for the programs that protect our most vulnerable citizens.
Speaker Pelosi’s Legacy Includes Historic Legislation for Seniors
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who declared Thursday that she will not seek a leadership position in the next Congress, has been lauded as a master of legislative procedure, a unifier of her caucus, a skilled tactician – and as someone who broke the “marble ceiling” for women in the halls of Congress.
“Nancy Pelosi steps down as the most accomplished congressional leader of her era, and probably the most successful House speaker of all time in terms of legislative impact.” – Washington Post, 11/17/22
No small part of Pelosi’s legislative legacy are the many bills that Pelosi, 82, shepherded through Congress to improve older Americans’ health and well-being. In her valedictory speech on the House floor, she wove seniors’ programs into a grand vision of congressional legacy:
“In this room, our colleagues across history have abolished slavery; granted women the right to vote; established Social Security and Medicare; offered a hand to the weak, care to the sick, education to the young and hope to the many.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 11/17/22
Speaker Pelosi guided the Inflation Reduction Act through the House, which finally allows Medicare to negotiate prices with drug-makers (although the number of drugs subject to negotiation is limited). The Inflation Reduction Act also capped Medicare beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 per year and limited their insulin costs to $35 a month – long-awaited steps to reduce seniors’ health care costs.
In 2010, Speaker Pelosi was indispensable to the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, which has provided health coverage to tens of millions of Americans who would otherwise be uninsured – including many “near seniors” previously priced out of the market. The ACA also benefitted Medicare patients. It included wellness check-ups at no cost and eliminated cost-sharing for most preventive services.
As Speaker Pelosi remarked upon the 10th anniversary of the ACA in 2020:
“The Affordable Care Act stands today among the greatest pillars of American health and financial security: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Affordable Care Act.” – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 3/23/20
Her stepping down as leader of the Democratic party in the House represents a passing of the torch to younger leaders. “The hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic Caucus that I so deeply respect. And I am grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility.”
The presumed frontrunners for a new leadership slate include Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) for Speaker, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-MA) for Minority Whip, and Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) for House Democratic Caucus chair. NCPSSM President and CEO Max Richtman says that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare “looks forward to a close working relationship on issues vital to America’s seniors with whomever emerges as the next Democratic leadership team in the U.S. House.”
NCPSSM-Endorsed Candidates Prevail in Mid-Terms
As the country awaits full election results, The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare congratulates the many seniors’ champions who prevailed in key races across the nation. More than 70 of the candidates who the National Committee enthusiastically endorsed have emerged victorious in crucial House and the Senate contests.
“These wins represent a resounding rejection of MAGA-nomics by voters in bellwether districts and states. While clearly concerned about inflation, these voters have said ‘No’ to more tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful corporations – and no to cuts in workers’ Social Security and Medicare benefits, including reducing COLAs or raising the eligibility ages for both programs.” – Max Richtman, NCPSSM President and CEO, 11/9/22
Here are a few of the candidates NCPSSM endorsed who won election to the 118th Congress:
Sen.-elect Jon Fetterman (PA)
Sen. Mark Kelly (AZ)*
Sen. Michael Bennett (CO)
Sen. Maggie Hassan (NH)
Rep. Dan Kildee (MI)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH)
Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA)
Rep.-elect Seth Magaziner (RI)
*not called yet
Current projections are that Republicans will win a slim House majority, while control of the Senate hinges on the outcome of races that have yet to be called – and possibly on a runoff race in Georgia. A House majority would give Republicans an opportunity to try to force through some of their proposals that jeopardize Americans’ earned benefits.
Key Republican leaders have threatened to use the inevitable battle over raising the nation’s debt limit in 2023 to compel the White House and Democrats to accept cuts to Social Security and Medicare. “The debt ceiling wrangling will be the biggest risk,” says Maria Freese, senior policy analyst at NCPSSM.
During the 2022 campaign, President Biden promised to fight any attempts to undermine seniors’ earned benefits, but Freese says that he will be under “tremendous pressure” from the GOP to make a deal, in order to forestall the nation from defaulting on its debts.
“If Republicans do control the House, seniors will be counting on President Biden to be a bulwark against harmful changes to Social Security and Medicare, beginning with the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations. As the President said, ‘GOP leaders have vowed to crash the economy by putting the U.S. in default unless we yield to their demand to cut Social Security and Medicare.’” – Max Richtman, 11/09/22
In his first post-election news conference on November 9th, President Biden pledged once again to defend the nation’s two most important social insurance programs:
“Under no circumstances will I agree to cut or make fundamental changes to Social Security and Medicare. It’s not on the table. I will NOT do that.” – President Biden, 11/9/22
During the mid-term campaign, key Republicans said they want to “save” Social Security and Medicare, but their proposals beg the question: at what cost to the very people who depend on those programs? The 2022 House Republican Study Committee blueprint called for raising the retirement age to 70, reducing COLAs, and cutting benefits for “high earners,” an odd characterization since the cuts eventually could extend to workers earning $40,000 per year.
“Anyone who says they’re going to ‘save’ Social Security but refuses to bring more revenue into the program is really talking benefit cuts for the heart of the middle class,” says Freese.
NCPSSM President and CEO Max Richtman calls on seniors and their families not to take anything for granted – and continue to remind their elected representatives that they insist Social Security and Medicare be protected:
“There are multiple ways to reach out to members of Congress – to remind our elected leaders that after a deadly pandemic that took a huge toll on seniors, the soaring cost of retirement, and ongoing wealth inequality, Americans depend on Social Security and Medicare to retire with dignity now more than ever.” – Max Richtman, 11/09/22
NCPSSM Makes Final Endorsements of 2022 Cycle, Emphasizing GOP Threats to Social Security and Medicare
As the midterm campaign draws to a close with the future of Social Security and Medicare possibly at stake, NCPSSM has been completing its final round of candidate endorsement events around the country. Today in Charlotte, North Carolina, NCPSSM legislative director and PAC coordinator Dan Adcock formally endorsed Democrat Cheri Beasley for U.S. Senate in one of the pivotal swing state races of this election cycle.
Adcock presented Beasley with the National Committee’s signature boxing gloves, symbolizing that she is a “champion” for seniors in North Carolina. Beasley, the former Chief Justice of North Carolina’s Supreme Court, is running against Republican congressman Ted Budd for the seat currently held by GOP Sen. Richard Burr. The outcome of this race could determine who controls the Senate come January.
“Cheri Beasley will protect and improve Social Security. Her opponent voted for a budget proposal that would have cut COLAs and raised the retirement age to 70. Cheri Beasley will protect and improve Medicare. Ted Budd voted to privatize Medicare for the benefit of insurance companies.” – NCPSSM legislative director and PAC coordinator Dan Adcock, Charlotte, NC, 11/4/22
The National Committee has endorsed nearly 100 candidates across the U.S. for House and Senate this year. On Thursday, NCPSSM president Max Richtman was in Bay City, MI, endorsing Rep. Dan Kildee (D-IL) for re-election to the U.S. House, pronouncing him the “Rocky Balboa” for older Michiganders.
“Every step of the way, Dan Kildee has made the right call. He voted dozens of times to protect the Affordable Care Act while Republicans were hellbent on overturning it, stripping Michiganders with pre-existing conditions of their health care coverage and kicking millions off of Medicaid. And since Representative Kildee first took office, he has been a leader in the fight to improve Social Security and Medicare and reduce health care costs.” – Max Richtman, 11/3/22
Richtman also commended Rep. Kildee for his leadership on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee, saying it’s important that he remain in that role to help protect senior’s earned benefits.
On Saturday, Richtman will be in Ohio to throw the National Committee’s support behind U.S. Rep Tim Ryan (D-OH) in his bid to defeat Republican J.D. Vance for the seat being vacated by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH). While key Republicans have proposed harmful proposals for seniors’ earned benefits, Vance appears to have moderated his stance about Social Security and Medicare since running for this seat:
“His Democratic opponent, Rep. Tim Ryan, has criticized Vance for a 2010 blog post that described Social Security and Medicare among the largest drivers of the deficit. But Vance has since downplayed the need for changes to the programs.” – Bloomberg Government, 10/31/22
Meanwhile, Rep. Ryan has been a staunch ally of seniors in the U.S. Congress and earned a 100% rating on NCPSSM’s legislative scorecard. He has fought back against efforts to cut and privatize Social Security and Medicare – and “has supported legislation that would put more money in seniors’ pockets by increasing benefits, cutting taxes, and ensuring that Social Security keeps up with the rising cost of living.” Ryan also supports strengthening and expanding Medicare.
The mid-term election has become an existential threat for the nation’s two main social insurance programs for seniors, with Republicans openly proposing to cut, privatize, or jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. President Biden couldn’t have put it more plainly during a speech in Florida this week:
“You’ve been paying into (these programs) your whole life. You earned it. Now these guys want to take it away. Who in the hell do they think they are?” – President Biden, 11/1/22
NCPSSM has been calling on senior voters to cast ballots in their own interest, emphasizing that the GOP is not worthy of their trust on these issues – and that Republicans have no productive plans for addressing high priority items like inflation and gas prices. As Los Angeles Times Michael Hiltzik columnist recently wrote in a piece entitled, Republicans Keep Harping on Inflation, But Don’t Have Any Answers for It: “Proposals to diminish seniors’ benefits in any way would make it even harder for older Americans to cope with today’s economic difficulties.”
On Tuesday, voters will have an opportunity to protect their financial and health security – or take a risky step toward losing the programs that have ensured those very things for generations.
Let’s Protect Social Security & Medicare On November 8th
It is no exaggeration to say that the nation’s two most important programs for seniors—Social Security and Medicare—are on the line in this November’s elections. This is not a matter of nuance; it’s truly existential. Whichever party controls Congress will influence whether Social Security and Medicare will continue as we know them—or be weakened and privatized. The outcome depends largely on how older Americans—who cast ballots more reliably than any other age group—vote in 2022.
For seniors, the stakes could not be higher, nor the choice clearer. “The Social Security you paid for from the time you had a job is on the ballot. Your right to vote is on the ballot. Even the democracy. Are you ready to fight for these things now?” said President Joe Biden at an August rally in Maryland.
The president was not exaggerating. Democrats have made earnest efforts to boost Social Security and Medicare in the 117th Congress—and to shore up the finances of both programs. They have introduced legislation in both the House and Senate to strengthen Social Security and expand benefits. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which should significantly lower seniors’ prescription drug costs, with zero Republican support. Meanwhile, GOP members of Congress, who for years have mouthed general support for Social Security and Medicare, are now saying the quiet part out loud: They propose to break the fundamental promises of both programs.
You have to give Republicans credit for political brazenness, though perhaps recklessness is a better word. During an election year, Senator Rick Scott (R-Fla.), chair of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the Senate, proposed a plan where Social Security and Medicare would have to be renewed every five years by Congress—putting both programs on a path toward steep budget cuts, if not outright elimination. Scott’s proposal garnered significant backlash, but that did not stop Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) from saying a few months later that Social Security and Medicare should be considered “discretionary” spending, placing seniors’ benefits at the mercy of the Congressional budget process every year.
Some Republican candidates for Congress have followed this path off the political cliff. As NBC News reported, “In major Senate and House races across the country, GOP candidates have called for cutting long-term Social Security spending to tackle inflation and resolve the program’s finances.” In Arizona, a state with one of the largest populations of retirees in the country, GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters endorsed the idea of gambling seniors’ earned benefits on the stock market. “Maybe we should privatize Social Security, right? Private retirement accounts, get the government out of it,” he said. Privatization is a terrible idea and a largely unpopular one, but conservative idealogues continue to push policies that are great for Wall Street, but harmful to seniors on fixed incomes.
Last June, the House Republican Study Committee’s budget blueprint included raising Social Security’s full retirement age—a massive benefit cut that ignores the fact that although some people are living longer, many are not able to continue working until age 70. The full retirement age has already been raised to 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later. Workers claiming Social Security before their full retirement age face reduced monthly benefits for life. Nearly half of retirees rely on Social Security for all or most of their income. The last thing they need is another increase in the retirement age—though this is one of the most popular ideas in Republican circles.
Social Security and Medicare are Democratic legacies, enacted by Democratic majorities in Congress and signed into law by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively. Democrats realize that both programs face financing challenges. Social Security’s combined trust fund is projected to become depleted by 2035 if Congress fails to take preventative action. The Medicare Part A trust fund will run out in 2028 without congressional help. While Republicans want future seniors to bear the burden of shoring up Social Security’s finances, Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), among others, champion solutions that produce more revenue, such as asking the wealthy to contribute their fair share in payroll taxes—allowing an actual boost in benefits.
Social Security and Medicare are not the only issues affecting seniors, who bore much of the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic both in terms of lives lost and personal finances drained. The rising cost of health care, housing, and long-term care represent serious challenges that must be solved. But conservatives oppose any tax increases for the wealthy or profitable corporations that might help address these challenges. The GOP’s blind faith in the private sector to solve seniors’ problems has proven woefully misplaced. On the most important issues affecting seniors, Democrats are on seniors’ side.
Unfortunately, seniors have not always voted in their own interests. Voters over 65 went for Donald Trump by four to five points in the 2020 presidential election, despite Trump’s repeated attempts to break his 2016 campaign promise “not to touch” Social Security and Medicare. A poll released in August showed Republicans with a 15-point lead over Democrats among seniors in the upcoming midterms. In fact, seniors as a voting bloc have favored the GOP in every midterm election since 2002.
Political analysts note that seniors have gravitated toward Republicans because of cultural issues, rather than voting in their best economic interests. That’s a raw deal for older voters, says former Fox News commentator Juan Williams: “Republicans did not reward those voters with backing for social safety net programs for seniors – Social Security and Medicare. And they are not backing legislation to cut the cost of prescription drugs.”
With tens of millions of older Americans relying on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other safety net programs, seniors cannot afford to unconditionally support the party of Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, or Arizona’s Blake Masters. It’s important that older voters know where their candidates truly stand on these vital programs. Seniors should attend town halls with their elected representatives, consume news from credible sources, assess candidates’ actual positions, and cast their ballots wisely. They also can consult our Voters Guide, which rates members of Congress according to their votes on these crucial issues.
Will voters allow the reversal of decades of progress for seniors, the disabled, children and other Americans at risk? Or will we continue to build on the foundation that previous generations put in place to create a more just and equitable society that looks out for its most vulnerable citizens? Seniors, more than any other voting bloc, have the power to answer that question this November—and are among the voters with the most to win or lose.
Max Richtman is president and CEO of the nonprofit National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. He is former staff director of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging.