Social Security Promise Quilt Campaign Unites Young and Old
One of our biggest pet peeves is the ongoing attempt by so many in Washington to use intergenerational warfare to try and convince younger Americans their parents and grandparents are nothing more than ?greedy geezers? bankrupting this nation. While poll after poll show that argument has not gained the traction its purveyors had hoped for, it?s still an all too common political propaganda tool used by politicians whose real goal is to destroy Social Security and Medicare under the guise of deficit reduction. This, in spite of the fact that future generations could need these programs even more, as their incomes have faltered and they?re almost as likely to see a dinosaur as they are a pension.
All too often, the day-to-day reality of how Social Security touches the lives of virtually every American family is simply lost in this political debate. That?s why we?ve launched a new national campaign called Protect This Promise. Our goal is to bring generations together to share their stories about the vital role Social Security plays in their lives on our Social Security Promise Quilt. The Social Security Promise Quilt illustrates the interconnectivity of a program that touches virtually every American family whether the beneficiary is a future retiree, already retired, disabled or received survivor benefits as a child. Social Security is an American legacy ? not a partisan issue or a matter of age.
Please take just a moment and share your story — upload a family photo to our Promise Quilt and read the personal stories shared by hundreds of others throughout the nation. Americans understand the lasting value of Social Security and the Promise Quilt gives us an opportunity to stand together to remind Washington of the real life consequences of cutting benefits vital to millions of middle class Americans in every state of the nation.
The Good News and Bad News in the President’s Budget Plan
President Obama released his 2013 budget today with predictable howls from Republicans that there should be more cuts in Medicare and Social Security to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. While the President?s budget projects a deficit below $1 trillion and foresees the federal shortfall declining to sustainable levels by 2017, it doesn?t overhaul Social Security or turn Medicare into ?coupon care? so for conservatives, it?s considered dead on arrival.We applaud the President for rejecting the loud and well-financed Washington clarion call for balancing the budget with massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
?While the President?s budget offers a balanced approach addressing revenue and spending, his plan shifts even more costs to seniors in Medicare through increased means-testing, premium hikes and co-pays. The real cost driver is not Medicare, as some have claimed, but rising healthcare costs system-wide. We need to tackle the true problem, not just pass more costs on to seniors. That?s why the National Committee supported health care reform as the best way to bring spending under control. We should be expanding on the progress made since the Affordable Care Act became law rather than finding new ways to send seniors the budget bill.? Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
However, we do not support the President?s plan to expand Medicare means-testing. While it may sound logical that so-called ?rich? seniors should pay more during tight budget times, the truth is that?s not what means testing will actually do:
?While some tout increasing means testing in Medicare as a way to insure ?rich? seniors pay their share, the truth is, the middle-class will take this hit too. Medicare has already been means tested since 2007 and the number of beneficiaries subject to higher premiums is already increasing. Proposals that target even more Medicare beneficiaries for increasing premiums will ultimately impact beneficiaries with modest incomes.? Max Richtman, President and CEO
Proposals that would subject even more Medicare beneficiaries to income-related premiums would impact beneficiaries who certainly would not be considered higher income. For example, beneficiaries with incomes of just $47,000 today, would face higher premiums by 2035 according to a report on means testing prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Social Security Elevator Pitch
Talking about Social Security financing in a way that the average person can truly understand is a challenge. Yet given the constant–and often purposeful– misinformation provided by those who hope to undermine the program, it’s a challenge we all must undertake because as FDR said “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”Angry Bear blog is one of the web’s best when it comes to the issue of Social Security. This weekend’s post “Social Security: The Elevator Pitch” does a terrific job of breaking down the issue to its core. Print this one–stick it on the refrigerator–email it to your friends…It’s a keeper and this month’s Networthy Award winner.
Social Security: The Elevator PitchPosted by Steve Roth | 1/29/2012 10:34:00 AMSteve Roth? Since Social Security started it has always brought in more money than was spent. It contributes a surplus to the total federal budget. That?s true today and will continue for quite some time.? The extra revenue needed to make SS solid far beyond the foreseeable future (75 years) is tiny: 0.6% of GDP.? A 0.6% revenue increase would not be a big burden. The U.S. has been taxing about 28% of GDP for decades, compared to 30-50% in other rich countries (average: 40%).? Coincidentally, Scrapping the Cap on SS contributions ? so high earners paid payroll tax above $110K ? would deliver ? 0.6% of GDP
Worried about our fiscal future? It?s the health care costs, stupid. What providers charge.U.S. providers charge two to five times what they charge in other countries, and it?s rising faster ? and faster than wages, GDP, inflation.If you?re not talking about that, you have nothing useful to say about our fiscal future:
Social Security & Medicare as Bargaining Chips
Only time will tell whether the “reforms” President Obama offered up again in last night’s State of the Union are the standard Washington formulation of reforms = benefit cuts for seniors or something more meaningful. And on the payroll tax, we’ve repeatedly said the White House stimulus strategy is just plain wrong. Here’s what he said about Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid in last night’s speech followed by our reaction:
Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let?s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.When it comes to the deficit, we?ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we?re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else ? like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we?re serious about paying down our debt, we can?t do both.The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I?m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you?re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn?t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn?t go up. You?re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You?re the ones who need relief.
Our President/CEO, Max Richtman responded:
?We share President Obama?s belief that we must rebuild our economy in a way that rewards Americans? hard work and re-instills fairness into an economic system that too often rewards the rich and punishes everyone else. Ironically, these core American values of hard work, fairness and compassion are also the tenets of the programs most often targeted by Washington for cuts?Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If offering more reforms leads to benefit cuts for seniors in these vital programs then seniors program will once again become a bargaining chip traded in exchange for tax breaks millionaires don?t need in the first place.The President?s support for providing a middle class tax cut to help spur the economy is the right policy, but reducing Social Security payroll taxes is the wrong way to do it. Extending the payroll tax cut further endangers Social Security’s financial integrity and could undermine our efforts to defend the program from benefit cuts or privatization. If seniors are required to pay for the payroll tax holiday — which most would not benefit from ? through Medicare cuts as some lawmakers have suggested, that would also be contrary to the President?s stated goals of fairness. We urge President Obama to safeguard the middle-class by drawing a clear line in the sand,promising the American people that this so-called ?holiday? will end this year. Restoring Social Security?s successful self-funding model is the only way to preserve its independence for future generations.? Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Meanwhile Republicans are poised and ready to make a “deal” that demands benefit cuts and privatization, coupon care and work til you die. Here’s the GOP response to the President’s State of the Union, replete with dire warnings and fear-mongering the facts, claiming there are only two options for Social Security and Medicare–do nothing (which NO ONE supports) or radical reforms that destroy the programs in their current forms. False options and the same song—102nd verse, taken from the Cato playbook written more than 25 years ago:
“We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too. […]
?The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothingListening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.”
Just a reminder: according to the Social Security Trustees the Social Security Trust fund currently has a surplus of $2.6 trillion. This surplus is projected to grow until 2022. At that time the balance in the trust funds are projected to be $3.7 trillion. The skyrocketing costs of healthcaresystem wide have posed a greater threat to Medicare; however, healthcare reform addedyears of solvency to the program. While there’s more work to be done conservatives are now working to undo the progress already made by repealing the Affordable Care Act and reversing the savings already seen in Medicare.
Newt Gingrich and Social Security
There are many reasons primary voters cast the ballots they do?unfortunately, a deep understanding of the candidates? positions on important (and sometimes complex) policy issues isn?t always at the top of the list. This often leads to ?buyers remorse? once voters actually get a good look at the nominees? positions on issues that truly impact the average American. Issues like Social Security for example.We weren?t in South Carolina doing exit polling but are still willing to bet most voters have virtually no idea what the former Speaker plans for Social Security. Not only does he support privatization, he doubles down on the failed Bush plan, by promising the private investment companies who might someday control your Social Security contributions that the government will back them up if/when they lose your money. Sounds like a sweet deal for investors that would also cost taxpayers big time. Think Progress describes the plan this way:
?As we pointed out when Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) suggested a similar idea, promising to make investors whole again sets up a huge moral hazard problem. If investors know full well that the government is going to provide them with a minimum benefit, no matter what they do, then the incentive is to make risky investments and hope for a big payoff. After all, why not take the risk if the government has guaranteed that you can?t lose money? Investors have every incentive to bet big in the hopes of a large payout, because if they go bust, the government will bail them out. Add to this the fact that the privatized systems in Chile and Galveston aren?t as wonderful as Gingrich makes out. In fact, while they work quite well for the wealthy, middle- and lower-income participants wind up worse off.??Gingrich?s plan would alsocause the deficit to explode, as money meant for Social Security would have to be diverted into the creation and administration of private accounts. Social Securitykept 14 million seniors out of poverty last year, but Gingrich would enact a scheme to privatize the system, while hoisting the costs of failure onto the federal government.?
So, Newt Gingrich?s plan means more for private investment firms who will get to play with your money, in a system that benefits the wealthy, and explodes the deficit.Chances are, voters in South Carolina?where there?s a growing senior population facing 13% poverty— didn?t know much about Gingrich?s Social Security plan, and as with President Bush?s privatization plan, the more Americans find out about it the less they?ll like it.Talk about buyer?s remorse! Wait until you hear what he?s got planned for Medicare…we’ll have more on that later.
Social Security Promise Quilt Campaign Unites Young and Old
One of our biggest pet peeves is the ongoing attempt by so many in Washington to use intergenerational warfare to try and convince younger Americans their parents and grandparents are nothing more than ?greedy geezers? bankrupting this nation. While poll after poll show that argument has not gained the traction its purveyors had hoped for, it?s still an all too common political propaganda tool used by politicians whose real goal is to destroy Social Security and Medicare under the guise of deficit reduction. This, in spite of the fact that future generations could need these programs even more, as their incomes have faltered and they?re almost as likely to see a dinosaur as they are a pension.
All too often, the day-to-day reality of how Social Security touches the lives of virtually every American family is simply lost in this political debate. That?s why we?ve launched a new national campaign called Protect This Promise. Our goal is to bring generations together to share their stories about the vital role Social Security plays in their lives on our Social Security Promise Quilt. The Social Security Promise Quilt illustrates the interconnectivity of a program that touches virtually every American family whether the beneficiary is a future retiree, already retired, disabled or received survivor benefits as a child. Social Security is an American legacy ? not a partisan issue or a matter of age.
Please take just a moment and share your story — upload a family photo to our Promise Quilt and read the personal stories shared by hundreds of others throughout the nation. Americans understand the lasting value of Social Security and the Promise Quilt gives us an opportunity to stand together to remind Washington of the real life consequences of cutting benefits vital to millions of middle class Americans in every state of the nation.
The Good News and Bad News in the President’s Budget Plan
President Obama released his 2013 budget today with predictable howls from Republicans that there should be more cuts in Medicare and Social Security to preserve tax cuts for the wealthy. While the President?s budget projects a deficit below $1 trillion and foresees the federal shortfall declining to sustainable levels by 2017, it doesn?t overhaul Social Security or turn Medicare into ?coupon care? so for conservatives, it?s considered dead on arrival.We applaud the President for rejecting the loud and well-financed Washington clarion call for balancing the budget with massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
?While the President?s budget offers a balanced approach addressing revenue and spending, his plan shifts even more costs to seniors in Medicare through increased means-testing, premium hikes and co-pays. The real cost driver is not Medicare, as some have claimed, but rising healthcare costs system-wide. We need to tackle the true problem, not just pass more costs on to seniors. That?s why the National Committee supported health care reform as the best way to bring spending under control. We should be expanding on the progress made since the Affordable Care Act became law rather than finding new ways to send seniors the budget bill.? Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
However, we do not support the President?s plan to expand Medicare means-testing. While it may sound logical that so-called ?rich? seniors should pay more during tight budget times, the truth is that?s not what means testing will actually do:
?While some tout increasing means testing in Medicare as a way to insure ?rich? seniors pay their share, the truth is, the middle-class will take this hit too. Medicare has already been means tested since 2007 and the number of beneficiaries subject to higher premiums is already increasing. Proposals that target even more Medicare beneficiaries for increasing premiums will ultimately impact beneficiaries with modest incomes.? Max Richtman, President and CEO
Proposals that would subject even more Medicare beneficiaries to income-related premiums would impact beneficiaries who certainly would not be considered higher income. For example, beneficiaries with incomes of just $47,000 today, would face higher premiums by 2035 according to a report on means testing prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Social Security Elevator Pitch
Talking about Social Security financing in a way that the average person can truly understand is a challenge. Yet given the constant–and often purposeful– misinformation provided by those who hope to undermine the program, it’s a challenge we all must undertake because as FDR said “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”Angry Bear blog is one of the web’s best when it comes to the issue of Social Security. This weekend’s post “Social Security: The Elevator Pitch” does a terrific job of breaking down the issue to its core. Print this one–stick it on the refrigerator–email it to your friends…It’s a keeper and this month’s Networthy Award winner.
Worried about our fiscal future? It?s the health care costs, stupid. What providers charge.U.S. providers charge two to five times what they charge in other countries, and it?s rising faster ? and faster than wages, GDP, inflation.If you?re not talking about that, you have nothing useful to say about our fiscal future:
Social Security & Medicare as Bargaining Chips
Only time will tell whether the “reforms” President Obama offered up again in last night’s State of the Union are the standard Washington formulation of reforms = benefit cuts for seniors or something more meaningful. And on the payroll tax, we’ve repeatedly said the White House stimulus strategy is just plain wrong. Here’s what he said about Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid in last night’s speech followed by our reaction:
Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let?s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.When it comes to the deficit, we?ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we?re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else ? like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we?re serious about paying down our debt, we can?t do both.The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I?m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you?re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn?t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn?t go up. You?re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You?re the ones who need relief.
Our President/CEO, Max Richtman responded:
?We share President Obama?s belief that we must rebuild our economy in a way that rewards Americans? hard work and re-instills fairness into an economic system that too often rewards the rich and punishes everyone else. Ironically, these core American values of hard work, fairness and compassion are also the tenets of the programs most often targeted by Washington for cuts?Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If offering more reforms leads to benefit cuts for seniors in these vital programs then seniors program will once again become a bargaining chip traded in exchange for tax breaks millionaires don?t need in the first place.The President?s support for providing a middle class tax cut to help spur the economy is the right policy, but reducing Social Security payroll taxes is the wrong way to do it. Extending the payroll tax cut further endangers Social Security’s financial integrity and could undermine our efforts to defend the program from benefit cuts or privatization. If seniors are required to pay for the payroll tax holiday — which most would not benefit from ? through Medicare cuts as some lawmakers have suggested, that would also be contrary to the President?s stated goals of fairness. We urge President Obama to safeguard the middle-class by drawing a clear line in the sand,promising the American people that this so-called ?holiday? will end this year. Restoring Social Security?s successful self-funding model is the only way to preserve its independence for future generations.? Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Meanwhile Republicans are poised and ready to make a “deal” that demands benefit cuts and privatization, coupon care and work til you die. Here’s the GOP response to the President’s State of the Union, replete with dire warnings and fear-mongering the facts, claiming there are only two options for Social Security and Medicare–do nothing (which NO ONE supports) or radical reforms that destroy the programs in their current forms. False options and the same song—102nd verse, taken from the Cato playbook written more than 25 years ago:
“We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too. […]
?The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothingListening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.”
Just a reminder: according to the Social Security Trustees the Social Security Trust fund currently has a surplus of $2.6 trillion. This surplus is projected to grow until 2022. At that time the balance in the trust funds are projected to be $3.7 trillion. The skyrocketing costs of healthcaresystem wide have posed a greater threat to Medicare; however, healthcare reform addedyears of solvency to the program. While there’s more work to be done conservatives are now working to undo the progress already made by repealing the Affordable Care Act and reversing the savings already seen in Medicare.
Newt Gingrich and Social Security
There are many reasons primary voters cast the ballots they do?unfortunately, a deep understanding of the candidates? positions on important (and sometimes complex) policy issues isn?t always at the top of the list. This often leads to ?buyers remorse? once voters actually get a good look at the nominees? positions on issues that truly impact the average American. Issues like Social Security for example.We weren?t in South Carolina doing exit polling but are still willing to bet most voters have virtually no idea what the former Speaker plans for Social Security. Not only does he support privatization, he doubles down on the failed Bush plan, by promising the private investment companies who might someday control your Social Security contributions that the government will back them up if/when they lose your money. Sounds like a sweet deal for investors that would also cost taxpayers big time. Think Progress describes the plan this way:
?As we pointed out when Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) suggested a similar idea, promising to make investors whole again sets up a huge moral hazard problem. If investors know full well that the government is going to provide them with a minimum benefit, no matter what they do, then the incentive is to make risky investments and hope for a big payoff. After all, why not take the risk if the government has guaranteed that you can?t lose money? Investors have every incentive to bet big in the hopes of a large payout, because if they go bust, the government will bail them out. Add to this the fact that the privatized systems in Chile and Galveston aren?t as wonderful as Gingrich makes out. In fact, while they work quite well for the wealthy, middle- and lower-income participants wind up worse off.??Gingrich?s plan would alsocause the deficit to explode, as money meant for Social Security would have to be diverted into the creation and administration of private accounts. Social Securitykept 14 million seniors out of poverty last year, but Gingrich would enact a scheme to privatize the system, while hoisting the costs of failure onto the federal government.?
So, Newt Gingrich?s plan means more for private investment firms who will get to play with your money, in a system that benefits the wealthy, and explodes the deficit.Chances are, voters in South Carolina?where there?s a growing senior population facing 13% poverty— didn?t know much about Gingrich?s Social Security plan, and as with President Bush?s privatization plan, the more Americans find out about it the less they?ll like it.Talk about buyer?s remorse! Wait until you hear what he?s got planned for Medicare…we’ll have more on that later.