Busting Social Security Myths
Busting Washington’s biggest Social Security myths
Busting Washington’s biggest Social Security mythsBY MAX RICHTMAN
Special to The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 12, 2013
There is no other issue where the disconnect between Congress and the American people is more stark than the future of Social Security. Thanks to Washington’s well-financed austerity lobby, the truth about Social Security has become obscured by political propaganda designed to persuade lawmakers to use Social Security’s revenues to fix fiscal problems completely unrelated to the program.
Whether it’s cutting benefits in the name of deficit reduction (even though Social Security by law cannot contribute to the debt) or using Social Security as political leverage in Washington’s version of “Let’s Make a Deal,” these approaches ignore the fact that Social Security is paid for, earned by, and promised to American workers.
Myth One: Social Security is a driver of our nation’s deficit.
Although some in Washington claim America can’t afford Social Security, the truth is, this program provides economic benefits to every state and community in our nation.
Nationwide, families spend $775 billion in Social Security benefits annually. In Florida, $56 billion dollars in Social Security benefits are paid to four million retirees, disabled and survivors, including children, each year. When those families use the purchasing power of their benefits, they are supporting local businesses and the state economy with billions of dollars they simply wouldn’t have without Social Security.
Unfortunately, this economic reality has been ignored by those who want to cut middle-class benefits in the name of austerity. Targeting families who rely on vital programs such as Social Security ignores our real economic problems in favor of a political strategy to cut safety net programs. Members of Congress should take a look at the state-by-state economic profiles from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and ask themselves, “Can my community afford to lose millions of dollars from our economy?” Step outside Capitol Hill and the answer is a resounding “No.”
Myth Two: Seniors are “greedy geezers.”
One of the favorite messages used widely by Washington’s billion-dollar, anti-Social Security lobby is that America’s “greedy geezers” are stealing from their grandchildren. They claim that if we allow retirees to collect the Social Security benefits they’ve paid for throughout their working lives, then somehow our children will suffer. This mythological link between funding for seniors programs and children’s programs makes for good propaganda but there’s literally no basis in reality for such linkage. In fact, new research by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that real linkage may exist between the dollars spent on our nation’s top 1 percent income earners and reduced spending on children.
Cutting benefits to generations of middle-class families won’t help the children, parents or grandparents in those families. The Recession Generation and beyond will need Social Security as much, if not more, than current generations. It’s time to reverse a 40-year trend of income inequality and redistribution to the wealthy while reigniting the American dream for middle-class families, which benefits young and old alike.
Myth Three: Immigration reform and the repeal of DOMA will bankrupt Social Security.
Those opposed to immigration reform and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act have attempted to use vital programs, such as Social Security, as an economic excuse to avoid doing the right thing. The truth is, neither legislative issue threatens Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office estimates new taxes paid by undocumented workers granted provisional legal status would cut federal budget deficits by $197 billion over 10 years. Social Security’s chief actuary estimates immigration reform would increase Social Security’s Trust Fund reserves by $248 billion by the end of 2024 and extend the program’s solvency by two years. The actuary also predicts providing benefit equity to qualified same-sex couples in retirement is a break-even proposition.
Myth Four: The whopper of all — Social Security will be bankrupt.
The truth is, even if Congress does nothing at all, Social Security is projected to deliver full guaranteed benefits until at least 2033. Even after 2033, Social Security will be able to pay about 77 percent of promised benefits out of the payroll contributions that will continue coming into the system. If Congress enacts modest changes, such as requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of payroll taxes, Social Security will be able to meet its full benefit obligations well beyond 2033. No one wants to see benefits cut to 77 percent; however, that’s not bankruptcy by any definition of the word.
The state of Social Security is strong today and should be made stronger for the future. But if our nation’s leaders want to be serious about addressing the long-term outlook for our nation’s most successful government program, then myths have no place in any Social Security debate.
Max Richtman is president and CEO of The National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, based in Washington, D.C.
Cutting Social Security Benefits NOT the Only Way
As part of our on-going series EQUAL TIME, today we take on a story which appeared in TIME’s business report.
“Report: Fix Social Security Now – or Pay a Stiff Price”
Dan Kadlec, Reporter
“…a 16.5% across-the-board cut in benefits or a 20% cut for new beneficiaries, according to the report from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That’s not painless. But it beats the alternative.”
Time Business Reporter Dan Kadlec took the concept of fair and balanced and threw it out the window while dutifully reporting the myopic results from one of Washington’s well-financed austerity lobby group’s “report” urging cuts to Social Security benefits. Incredibly, in his 447 words of coverage, not one was offered with alternate solutions offered by countless organizations proving you don’t have to slash benefits to keep Social Security strong for generations. In NCPSSM’s report, “Breaking the Glass Ceiling” we detail many other options which would not only close the 23% funding gap in 2033 as predicted by the Social Security Trustees, but also would not require harmful cuts for millions of working Americans who will rely upon their Social Security benefits for the majority of their income during retirement or disability.
The Best Ways to Boost Social Security Income
Here are some handy hints on how to increase the amount of Social Security benefits you are eligible to receive. Thanks to NCPSSM’s Social Security expert Mary Jane Yarrington for this welcome advice.
Patience (and working longer) Really Pays Off
Workers can file to claim benefit payments as early as age 62. But they will lose approximately 25% of their monthly benefit that way. Waiting to claim benefits until the full retirement age (currently age 66) or later can increase your monthly benefit amount. A worker whose full retirement age is 66, receives a delayed retirement credit of 2/3 percent per month or 8 percent per year. Any benefit payable to a surviving spouse includes the delayed retirement credits. Benefits further increase for each year you delay claiming up until age 70.
If you file early and then decide it may not have been the best decision for you financially, you have up to one year from the time you began benefits to withdraw your original application. To exercise that option you must repay the benefits received thus far. When you again want to receive benefits, you would submit a new application and the delayed claim will increase your benefit amount.
Special Extra Earnings for Military
Under certain circumstances, special extra earnings for your military service from 1957 through 2001 can be credited to your record for Social Security purposes. These extra earnings credits may help you qualify for Social Security or increase the amount of your Social Security benefit. If you served between 1957 and 1977, you are credited with $300 in additional earnings for each calendar quarter in which you received active duty basic pay. If you served between 1978 through 2001, for every $300 in active duty basic pay, you are credited with an additional $100 in earnings up to a maximum of $1,200 a year. If you enlisted after September 7, 1980, and didn’t complete at least 24 months of active duty or your full tour, you may not be able to receive the additional earnings. After 2001, there are no special extra earnings credits for military service.
Get Money from Your Honey
A worker’s spouse who is at least age 62 may be eligible for a benefit based on the worker’s earnings. The spousal benefit can be as much as half of the worker’s monthly benefit, depending on the spouse’s age at retirement. If the spouse begins receiving benefits before full retirement age, the benefit will be reduced.
To see the full list view here.
Twisting the Truth About Medicare
“How to Lie with Statistics” was a handy little guide that used to be required reading for journalism students and economics majors not so long ago. This book came to mind recently as we’ve followed the ongoing debate about the rate of doctors accepting or turning away Medicare patients. Columbia Journalism Review‘s, Trudy Lieberman, tackled the issue:
“The (Wall Street) Journal had reported that last year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 9,539 physicians opted out of Medicare, up from 3,700 in 2009. It noted an American Academy of Family Physicians survey that found the proportion of family physicians accepting new Medicare patients was 81 percent last year, down from 83 percent in 2010. Furthermore, the Journal reported, reimbursement rates weren’t the only issue: some doctors were dropping out of the system because Medicare is too intrusive in their practices. Mary Jane Minkin, a gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, quit when she saw patients’ gynecological records displayed on electronic records which made them available to other providers they consulted. ‘There’s no reason the dermatologist has to know about my patients’ libido issues,’ she told the paper.
Reasonably interesting stuff. But also somewhat incomplete, as Diamond (Dan Diamond of California Healthline) writes: ‘What the Journal didn’t report is that, per CMS, the number of physicians who agreed to accept Medicare patients continues to grow year-over-year, from 705,568 in 2012 to 735,041 in 2013. And other providers aren’t turning down Medicare, either. The number of nurse practitioners participating in the program has only gone up, Jan Towers of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners told California Healthline.’
USA Today also reports, “More Doctors accepting Medicare patients”.
“The number of physicians accepting new Medicare patients rose by one-third between 2007 and 2011 and is now higher than the number of physicians accepting new private insurance patients, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report obtained by USA TODAY.
In 2007, about 925,000 doctors billed Medicare for their services. In 2011, that number had risen to 1.25 million, according to the report by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
‘I think the report comes at a time when people are asking questions about Medicare,’ said Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator for the Center for Medicare Services. ‘It provides a more complete picture of how physicians choose to participate in the Medicare system.’
“Ninety percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicare patients, a rate similar to those who take privately insured patients, researchers found. The rate of Medicare patients who say they can find a new doctor in a timely manner is similar to those who are privately insured, the report said.
Medpac found 28% of beneficiaries had a tough time finding a doctor who accepted Medicare last year, but Blum said that’s also similar to privately insured rates. “
Threatening that doctors will leave Medicare is an annual rallying cry from physicians forced to fight against hugely unacceptable rate decreases mandated by a flawed formula that Congress simply must fix. For seniors, keeping their doctors is vitally important. It’s unfortunate that they’ve become the pawns in the battle to fix the physicians payment formula – something we agree must happen.
Obamacare and Seniors
As President Obama continues his August push on the Affordable Care Act, Politico has an interesting look at the ACA compared to the passage of Medicare in 1965. There are a lot of similarities as the GOP fought hard against both:
President Barack Obama says he’s not worried that all the Obamacare fights will kill the law — because people fought the creation of Medicare and Social Security too, and now they’re more popular than ever.
Democrats have always wanted to believe Obamacare would follow the same pattern: Opponents tried to block passage of the new programs, but once they became law, the public saw the benefits and the opposition faded away.
But this time there’s a difference. Political opposition to Obamacare is still as strong as ever, more than three years after it was signed into law.
That means the administration’s task in launching the health care law — the biggest new social program since the creation of Medicare in 1965 — is harder than anything its predecessors had to face.
One problem with this analysis is that opposition isn’t as strong as ever. In fact, a GOP poll designed to give support to Republicans continuing to push for ACA repeal found the American people actually don’t support repeal:
“Americans — including 57 percent of independents in ten critical congressional districts — favor defunding Obamacare,” said Michael Needham, the CEO of Heritage Action. “House Republicans should be much more concerned with the fallout of failing to defund Obamacare than with the imaginary fallout of doing so.”
What Needham fails to mention, however, is that even this push poll that dramatically oversamples Republicans (more on that in a minute) finds respondents are more likely to say that the Affordable Care Act should be kept than scrapped — and that a plurality would blame Republicans if the government were to shut down.
Only 44.5 percent “oppose the health care law and think it should be repealed,” while 52 percent either support the law as is or have some concerns, but say they think implementation should move forward. And asked whom they would blame if “there was an impasse between president Obama and Congress on whether to continue to fund the health care law, and that impasse resulted in a partial government shutdown,” the top response (28 percent) was Republicans in Congress. The next option, Obama, got 21 percent of respondents.”
Seniors in Medicare have a lot at stake in this debate. Thanks to Obamacare, seniors will see an average savings of about $4,200 in their prescription drug costs over the next decade and the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut hole” will be closed. Seniors also receive free preventative visits and health screenings plus the Medicare trust fund has gained a decade of solvency.
These are real-life tangible benefits for millions of seniors they simply don’t want to lose. It’s no wonder the House GOP is feeling the wind dying down in their Obamacare propaganda campaign.
Busting Social Security Myths
Busting Washington’s biggest Social Security myths
BY MAX RICHTMAN
Special to The Tampa Tribune
Published: September 12, 2013
There is no other issue where the disconnect between Congress and the American people is more stark than the future of Social Security. Thanks to Washington’s well-financed austerity lobby, the truth about Social Security has become obscured by political propaganda designed to persuade lawmakers to use Social Security’s revenues to fix fiscal problems completely unrelated to the program.
Whether it’s cutting benefits in the name of deficit reduction (even though Social Security by law cannot contribute to the debt) or using Social Security as political leverage in Washington’s version of “Let’s Make a Deal,” these approaches ignore the fact that Social Security is paid for, earned by, and promised to American workers.
Myth One: Social Security is a driver of our nation’s deficit.
Although some in Washington claim America can’t afford Social Security, the truth is, this program provides economic benefits to every state and community in our nation.
Nationwide, families spend $775 billion in Social Security benefits annually. In Florida, $56 billion dollars in Social Security benefits are paid to four million retirees, disabled and survivors, including children, each year. When those families use the purchasing power of their benefits, they are supporting local businesses and the state economy with billions of dollars they simply wouldn’t have without Social Security.
Unfortunately, this economic reality has been ignored by those who want to cut middle-class benefits in the name of austerity. Targeting families who rely on vital programs such as Social Security ignores our real economic problems in favor of a political strategy to cut safety net programs. Members of Congress should take a look at the state-by-state economic profiles from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and ask themselves, “Can my community afford to lose millions of dollars from our economy?” Step outside Capitol Hill and the answer is a resounding “No.”
Myth Two: Seniors are “greedy geezers.”
One of the favorite messages used widely by Washington’s billion-dollar, anti-Social Security lobby is that America’s “greedy geezers” are stealing from their grandchildren. They claim that if we allow retirees to collect the Social Security benefits they’ve paid for throughout their working lives, then somehow our children will suffer. This mythological link between funding for seniors programs and children’s programs makes for good propaganda but there’s literally no basis in reality for such linkage. In fact, new research by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that real linkage may exist between the dollars spent on our nation’s top 1 percent income earners and reduced spending on children.
Cutting benefits to generations of middle-class families won’t help the children, parents or grandparents in those families. The Recession Generation and beyond will need Social Security as much, if not more, than current generations. It’s time to reverse a 40-year trend of income inequality and redistribution to the wealthy while reigniting the American dream for middle-class families, which benefits young and old alike.
Myth Three: Immigration reform and the repeal of DOMA will bankrupt Social Security.
Those opposed to immigration reform and the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act have attempted to use vital programs, such as Social Security, as an economic excuse to avoid doing the right thing. The truth is, neither legislative issue threatens Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office estimates new taxes paid by undocumented workers granted provisional legal status would cut federal budget deficits by $197 billion over 10 years. Social Security’s chief actuary estimates immigration reform would increase Social Security’s Trust Fund reserves by $248 billion by the end of 2024 and extend the program’s solvency by two years. The actuary also predicts providing benefit equity to qualified same-sex couples in retirement is a break-even proposition.
Myth Four: The whopper of all — Social Security will be bankrupt.
The truth is, even if Congress does nothing at all, Social Security is projected to deliver full guaranteed benefits until at least 2033. Even after 2033, Social Security will be able to pay about 77 percent of promised benefits out of the payroll contributions that will continue coming into the system. If Congress enacts modest changes, such as requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share of payroll taxes, Social Security will be able to meet its full benefit obligations well beyond 2033. No one wants to see benefits cut to 77 percent; however, that’s not bankruptcy by any definition of the word.
The state of Social Security is strong today and should be made stronger for the future. But if our nation’s leaders want to be serious about addressing the long-term outlook for our nation’s most successful government program, then myths have no place in any Social Security debate.
Max Richtman is president and CEO of The National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, based in Washington, D.C.
Cutting Social Security Benefits NOT the Only Way
As part of our on-going series EQUAL TIME, today we take on a story which appeared in TIME’s business report.
“Report: Fix Social Security Now – or Pay a Stiff Price”
Dan Kadlec, Reporter
“…a 16.5% across-the-board cut in benefits or a 20% cut for new beneficiaries, according to the report from the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That’s not painless. But it beats the alternative.”
Time Business Reporter Dan Kadlec took the concept of fair and balanced and threw it out the window while dutifully reporting the myopic results from one of Washington’s well-financed austerity lobby group’s “report” urging cuts to Social Security benefits. Incredibly, in his 447 words of coverage, not one was offered with alternate solutions offered by countless organizations proving you don’t have to slash benefits to keep Social Security strong for generations. In NCPSSM’s report, “Breaking the Glass Ceiling” we detail many other options which would not only close the 23% funding gap in 2033 as predicted by the Social Security Trustees, but also would not require harmful cuts for millions of working Americans who will rely upon their Social Security benefits for the majority of their income during retirement or disability.
The Best Ways to Boost Social Security Income
Here are some handy hints on how to increase the amount of Social Security benefits you are eligible to receive. Thanks to NCPSSM’s Social Security expert Mary Jane Yarrington for this welcome advice.
Patience (and working longer) Really Pays Off
Workers can file to claim benefit payments as early as age 62. But they will lose approximately 25% of their monthly benefit that way. Waiting to claim benefits until the full retirement age (currently age 66) or later can increase your monthly benefit amount. A worker whose full retirement age is 66, receives a delayed retirement credit of 2/3 percent per month or 8 percent per year. Any benefit payable to a surviving spouse includes the delayed retirement credits. Benefits further increase for each year you delay claiming up until age 70.
If you file early and then decide it may not have been the best decision for you financially, you have up to one year from the time you began benefits to withdraw your original application. To exercise that option you must repay the benefits received thus far. When you again want to receive benefits, you would submit a new application and the delayed claim will increase your benefit amount.
Special Extra Earnings for Military
Under certain circumstances, special extra earnings for your military service from 1957 through 2001 can be credited to your record for Social Security purposes. These extra earnings credits may help you qualify for Social Security or increase the amount of your Social Security benefit. If you served between 1957 and 1977, you are credited with $300 in additional earnings for each calendar quarter in which you received active duty basic pay. If you served between 1978 through 2001, for every $300 in active duty basic pay, you are credited with an additional $100 in earnings up to a maximum of $1,200 a year. If you enlisted after September 7, 1980, and didn’t complete at least 24 months of active duty or your full tour, you may not be able to receive the additional earnings. After 2001, there are no special extra earnings credits for military service.
Get Money from Your Honey
A worker’s spouse who is at least age 62 may be eligible for a benefit based on the worker’s earnings. The spousal benefit can be as much as half of the worker’s monthly benefit, depending on the spouse’s age at retirement. If the spouse begins receiving benefits before full retirement age, the benefit will be reduced.
To see the full list view here.
Twisting the Truth About Medicare
“How to Lie with Statistics” was a handy little guide that used to be required reading for journalism students and economics majors not so long ago. This book came to mind recently as we’ve followed the ongoing debate about the rate of doctors accepting or turning away Medicare patients. Columbia Journalism Review‘s, Trudy Lieberman, tackled the issue:
“The (Wall Street) Journal had reported that last year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 9,539 physicians opted out of Medicare, up from 3,700 in 2009. It noted an American Academy of Family Physicians survey that found the proportion of family physicians accepting new Medicare patients was 81 percent last year, down from 83 percent in 2010. Furthermore, the Journal reported, reimbursement rates weren’t the only issue: some doctors were dropping out of the system because Medicare is too intrusive in their practices. Mary Jane Minkin, a gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, quit when she saw patients’ gynecological records displayed on electronic records which made them available to other providers they consulted. ‘There’s no reason the dermatologist has to know about my patients’ libido issues,’ she told the paper.
Reasonably interesting stuff. But also somewhat incomplete, as Diamond (Dan Diamond of California Healthline) writes: ‘What the Journal didn’t report is that, per CMS, the number of physicians who agreed to accept Medicare patients continues to grow year-over-year, from 705,568 in 2012 to 735,041 in 2013. And other providers aren’t turning down Medicare, either. The number of nurse practitioners participating in the program has only gone up, Jan Towers of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners told California Healthline.’
USA Today also reports, “More Doctors accepting Medicare patients”.
“The number of physicians accepting new Medicare patients rose by one-third between 2007 and 2011 and is now higher than the number of physicians accepting new private insurance patients, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report obtained by USA TODAY.
In 2007, about 925,000 doctors billed Medicare for their services. In 2011, that number had risen to 1.25 million, according to the report by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
‘I think the report comes at a time when people are asking questions about Medicare,’ said Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator for the Center for Medicare Services. ‘It provides a more complete picture of how physicians choose to participate in the Medicare system.’
“Ninety percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicare patients, a rate similar to those who take privately insured patients, researchers found. The rate of Medicare patients who say they can find a new doctor in a timely manner is similar to those who are privately insured, the report said.
Medpac found 28% of beneficiaries had a tough time finding a doctor who accepted Medicare last year, but Blum said that’s also similar to privately insured rates. “
Threatening that doctors will leave Medicare is an annual rallying cry from physicians forced to fight against hugely unacceptable rate decreases mandated by a flawed formula that Congress simply must fix. For seniors, keeping their doctors is vitally important. It’s unfortunate that they’ve become the pawns in the battle to fix the physicians payment formula – something we agree must happen.
Obamacare and Seniors
As President Obama continues his August push on the Affordable Care Act, Politico has an interesting look at the ACA compared to the passage of Medicare in 1965. There are a lot of similarities as the GOP fought hard against both:
President Barack Obama says he’s not worried that all the Obamacare fights will kill the law — because people fought the creation of Medicare and Social Security too, and now they’re more popular than ever.
Democrats have always wanted to believe Obamacare would follow the same pattern: Opponents tried to block passage of the new programs, but once they became law, the public saw the benefits and the opposition faded away.
But this time there’s a difference. Political opposition to Obamacare is still as strong as ever, more than three years after it was signed into law.
That means the administration’s task in launching the health care law — the biggest new social program since the creation of Medicare in 1965 — is harder than anything its predecessors had to face.
One problem with this analysis is that opposition isn’t as strong as ever. In fact, a GOP poll designed to give support to Republicans continuing to push for ACA repeal found the American people actually don’t support repeal:
“Americans — including 57 percent of independents in ten critical congressional districts — favor defunding Obamacare,” said Michael Needham, the CEO of Heritage Action. “House Republicans should be much more concerned with the fallout of failing to defund Obamacare than with the imaginary fallout of doing so.”
What Needham fails to mention, however, is that even this push poll that dramatically oversamples Republicans (more on that in a minute) finds respondents are more likely to say that the Affordable Care Act should be kept than scrapped — and that a plurality would blame Republicans if the government were to shut down.
Only 44.5 percent “oppose the health care law and think it should be repealed,” while 52 percent either support the law as is or have some concerns, but say they think implementation should move forward. And asked whom they would blame if “there was an impasse between president Obama and Congress on whether to continue to fund the health care law, and that impasse resulted in a partial government shutdown,” the top response (28 percent) was Republicans in Congress. The next option, Obama, got 21 percent of respondents.”
Seniors in Medicare have a lot at stake in this debate. Thanks to Obamacare, seniors will see an average savings of about $4,200 in their prescription drug costs over the next decade and the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut hole” will be closed. Seniors also receive free preventative visits and health screenings plus the Medicare trust fund has gained a decade of solvency.
These are real-life tangible benefits for millions of seniors they simply don’t want to lose. It’s no wonder the House GOP is feeling the wind dying down in their Obamacare propaganda campaign.