By Will Parry
Is AARP’s national leadership ready to cut a deal at the expense of the millions who rely on Social Security for their daily bread?
A story in the Wall Street Journal on June 17 reported that AARP, after a “wrenching” internal debate, “is dropping its long-standing opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.”
CEO A. Barry Rand initially denied that the AARP’s position had changed. But Rand’s “clarifying” follow-up statement did nothing to insulate his organization from the outrage of Social Security’s defenders.
“AARP has now concluded that change is inevitable and wants to be at the table to minimize the pain,” the Journal reported. It quoted AARP Policy Director John Rother: “The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens.”
“Everybody knows we need to look at a package of different changes to Social Security to make it stronger for the long term,” said David Certner, AARP legislative policy director. “And we’re certainly willing to talk about a package of changes that will keep Social Security strong.”
The AARP readiness to open Social Security to troubling revisions triggered a firestorm of protest from the many advocates who have been fighting both to preserve the integrity of Social Security and to strengthen its role as the nation’s prime social insurance program. AARP’s own switchboard was reportedly deluged with protest calls from its members.
The New York Times said AARP’s stance “could provide added ammunition to fiscal conservatives who have sought unsuccessfully to restructure Social Security and chip away at the benefits it promises older Americans.”
CNN reported that the AARP’s change in posture “has already sent shock waves through the Beltway’s large and influential entitlement reform community. It’s prompted calls from lawmakers and centrist and conservative groups for Congress to seize the initiative and agree to cut benefits.”
One such centrist group, the think tank “Third Way,” immediately welcomed the news.
“Today marks a watershed moment in American politics,” said Jonathan Cowan, president of Third Way. “Now that they (AARP) have opened the door to reform, it is time for lawmakers to walk through it.”
Significantly, ex-Senator Alan Simpson, an archenemy of Social Security, welcomed the AARP position. “If they come around and say they are ready to do something, it will be like the Arctic icecap cracking,” Simpson said.
AARP’s stance gives cover to those in Congress, Democrat as well as Republican, who are looking for an excuse to rob Social Security in the name of attacking the budget deficit.
“The timing of AARP’s statements was particularly bad,” said Max Richtman, executive vice president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, “because it came in the midst of deliberations between the Obama administration and Congressional Republicans about the debt ceiling and overall deficit reduction.
“AARP is the 800-pound gorilla, but they do not speak for seniors,” Richtman said.
The Alliance for Retired Americans immediately rejected AARP’s policy of compromise and retreat.
.
“There is no ambiguity on where the Alliance for Retired Americans stands on Social Security,” said ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle. “Never has been, never will be. We are against Social Security cuts for seniors.”
That fighting position is shared by the broad Strengthen Social Security coalition, whose 300 affiliated organizations include ARA. In recent months, as the deficit hawks stepped up their assault on the integrity of the program, AARP declined an invitation to join the coalition.
“AARP does not speak for all seniors,” Coyle said. “And on this topic, probably not for many of their own members.”
Over the years as advocates fought to defend and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, AARP has largely gone its own way. In 2003, the organization lent critical support to the enactment of a version of Medicare Part D that provided drugs to seniors, but enriched the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the process.
In Washington State, AARP representatives play a constructive and cooperative role in the Senior Lobby. But no state-level activity can offset failure to defend the integrity of Social Security.
President Robby Stern of the Puget Sound ARA said the AARP stance “has opened the door for the enemies of Social Security and created cover for weak-kneed Congressional representatives and senators to do real damage.”
From AARP CEO Rand’s statement, Stern said, “we really do not know where they stand on such critical proposals as (1) raising the retirement age; (2) changing the COLA to one less advantageous to beneficiaries; (3) reducing benefits for some Social Security recipients; (4) eliminating or raising the cap to fully fund Social Security for the next century; (5) allowing the FICA holiday for wage earners to lapse at the end of the year; or (5) opposing any tax holiday for employer FICA contributions.”
“It is time for AARP to be specific on where they stand on specific proposals, both positive and negative,” Stern said. “It is not enough to state that they are against privatization.”
Showing posts with label privatizing Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privatizing Social Security. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Strengthen Social Security...don’t cut it!
By Steve Kofahl
We’re advocating for improvements in benefit adequacy and equity, not just pushing back hard against the forces determined to cut payments and deform Social Security. By scrapping the $106,800 cap on earnings subject to payroll and self-employment taxes, we would gain revenue to fund program enhancements, while laying to rest any concerns about Trust Fund solvency.
At the Social Security implementation strategy session at the December 2005 White House Conference on Aging, the delegation from the Puget Sound Alliance made important recommendations, and got all of them approved. We suggested raising the surviving spouse benefit to 75% of the combined amount formerly paid to the couple, recognizing that the remaining individual needs more than one- half of the couple’s prior income to meet basic needs.
For workers who care for young children, we called for dropping their years with little or no earnings from the calculation of lifetime average earnings. Average indexed monthly earnings over the best 35 years are the basis for computing payment amounts, and this would allow fewer years to be averaged. A guaranteed minimum benefit would be established to keep low income workers out of poverty.
These changes would be gender neutral, but would primarily benefit women, who generally spend fewer years than men in the workforce, and continue to earn less for comparable work. For the disabled, we recommended an end to the five-month waiting period before benefits are paid following disability onset, and elimination of the 29-month waiting period for Medicare.
The national Strengthen Social Security coalition supports increased revenue from those most able to pay, as well as benefit improvements. Seattle’s Economic Opportunity Institute (EOI) is on the Steering Committee, and serves with PSARA and 18 other member organizations in Social Security Works Washington.
EOI calls for expiration of the 2% payroll tax “holiday” at the end of the year; for scrapping the cap; for a more progressive benefit computation formula; and for a drop in computation years from 35 to 30 in order to raise payments for those who must temporarily leave the workforce to provide childcare and eldercare.
Senator Maria Cantwell will introduce a bill to raise cost of living adjustments by pegging them to a modified Consumer Price Index that measures costs of a “market basket” of goods and services required by seniors and other beneficiaries. We really need to get behind this one, because our opponents are pushing for a reduced COLA for current and future beneficiaries. The costs of health care, food, and housing represent a greater portion of what is spend by beneficiaries than by the general population, and they are growing much faster than the standard CPI.
The October 2009 National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) report, “Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Financing,” prepared for the Senate Select Committee on Aging, describes a menu of Social Security financing and benefit improvement options, including many of those described above.
The Congressional Budget Office followed NASI with “Social Security Policy Options.” NASI and CBO are non-partisan, and not advocacy organizations, so the choices are presented in a neutral and objective manner. If you want more information, check them out! It’s time we played offense, as well as defense, when it comes to Social Security.
(Steve Kofahl is president of Local 3937 of the American Federation of Government Employees and a member of the PSARA Executive Board.)
We’re advocating for improvements in benefit adequacy and equity, not just pushing back hard against the forces determined to cut payments and deform Social Security. By scrapping the $106,800 cap on earnings subject to payroll and self-employment taxes, we would gain revenue to fund program enhancements, while laying to rest any concerns about Trust Fund solvency.
At the Social Security implementation strategy session at the December 2005 White House Conference on Aging, the delegation from the Puget Sound Alliance made important recommendations, and got all of them approved. We suggested raising the surviving spouse benefit to 75% of the combined amount formerly paid to the couple, recognizing that the remaining individual needs more than one- half of the couple’s prior income to meet basic needs.
For workers who care for young children, we called for dropping their years with little or no earnings from the calculation of lifetime average earnings. Average indexed monthly earnings over the best 35 years are the basis for computing payment amounts, and this would allow fewer years to be averaged. A guaranteed minimum benefit would be established to keep low income workers out of poverty.
These changes would be gender neutral, but would primarily benefit women, who generally spend fewer years than men in the workforce, and continue to earn less for comparable work. For the disabled, we recommended an end to the five-month waiting period before benefits are paid following disability onset, and elimination of the 29-month waiting period for Medicare.
The national Strengthen Social Security coalition supports increased revenue from those most able to pay, as well as benefit improvements. Seattle’s Economic Opportunity Institute (EOI) is on the Steering Committee, and serves with PSARA and 18 other member organizations in Social Security Works Washington.
EOI calls for expiration of the 2% payroll tax “holiday” at the end of the year; for scrapping the cap; for a more progressive benefit computation formula; and for a drop in computation years from 35 to 30 in order to raise payments for those who must temporarily leave the workforce to provide childcare and eldercare.
Senator Maria Cantwell will introduce a bill to raise cost of living adjustments by pegging them to a modified Consumer Price Index that measures costs of a “market basket” of goods and services required by seniors and other beneficiaries. We really need to get behind this one, because our opponents are pushing for a reduced COLA for current and future beneficiaries. The costs of health care, food, and housing represent a greater portion of what is spend by beneficiaries than by the general population, and they are growing much faster than the standard CPI.
The October 2009 National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) report, “Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Financing,” prepared for the Senate Select Committee on Aging, describes a menu of Social Security financing and benefit improvement options, including many of those described above.
The Congressional Budget Office followed NASI with “Social Security Policy Options.” NASI and CBO are non-partisan, and not advocacy organizations, so the choices are presented in a neutral and objective manner. If you want more information, check them out! It’s time we played offense, as well as defense, when it comes to Social Security.
(Steve Kofahl is president of Local 3937 of the American Federation of Government Employees and a member of the PSARA Executive Board.)
Friday, November 5, 2010
For the thousands of ‘Christinas’
By Roberta Riley
I thought of Christina when I read the latest studies showing that an increasing number of older Americans, especially single women and women of color, are slipping into poverty. Christina died a couple years ago with $15 in her bank account.
My parents first met her in the kitchen of their church, where together they made sandwiches for the homeless. When the residents of Tent City asked to set up camp in the church parking lot after the earthquake of February 2001, an angry mob packed the public meeting. They shouted and screamed, for well over an hour, that the homeless would bring crime, drugs and filth to the neighborhood. Then this tiny, birdlike woman stepped up to the microphone, and told her story.
She was born in Serbia. The ravages of World War II destroyed her home, killing her husband and displacing her and their baby girl to a series of refugee camps. America welcomed mother and child when they emigrated in the 1950s. Soon she found work as a server at Manhattan's Waldorf Astoria hotel. "I love this country,” she said, "but the way we are acting tonight makes me feel ashamed. If this earthquake had destroyed your home, would you want the church to help?"
By the time she finished, you could hear a pin drop.
"It was the most amazing transformation I've ever witnessed," recalls Pastor Rich Lang. She completely changed the tone of the evening, nobody said another word against the homeless, and Tent City was allowed in.
Compassion triumphed over fear because Christina stood up for the less fortunate. She refused to let her own poverty impoverish her spirit. Her kind face, chin length gray hair, and Slavic accent seem to rise from the pages as I pore through Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Finances, by the National Academy of Social Insurance.
She was one of thousands of women in the “most vulnerable” category, whose years of paid work were interrupted because she also cared for others. Her altruism was penalized with minimal Social Security benefits. Yet Fixing Social Security and other studies demonstrate that we have plenty of good options to increase Social Security revenues, securely finance current benefits, and pay for benefit improvements for those most in need.
A related study, by Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), establishes just how critical it is that we update the way we measure poverty in this country, which sets the baseline for Social Security benefits. The antiquated formula, which is based on the cost of food, little else, assumes one person living alone in 2008 could get by on $10,400. But at that level, Christina suffered. She couldn’t afford her medications and pay rent and utilities. The cupboards of her tiny apartment were bare by the third week of the month.
The new, updated measure developed by WOW takes health and other necessary expenses into account. It finds that an older American who lives alone and enjoys good health actually needs about $16,300 to make ends meet if she owns a home mortgage-free. A renter like Christina needs about $20,250, and a homeowner still paying off a mortgage needs approximately $24,000.
We could pay for the benefit increases WOW calls for simply by requiring higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on ALL of their wages. There is no good reason to exempt income above $106,800 from the payroll tax. It is just another tax break for the wealthy.
As this article goes to press, we do not know the outcome of this month’s election, but the latest posturing and misinformation by enemies of Social Security signals that Republicans will soon claim we must raid the Social Security Trust Fund and impose “entitlement reform” to reduce the federal deficit.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate economist, debunks such myths, penciling out the numbers to show that we can secure the existing program for generations to come by simply undoing President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Fixing Social Security and WOW further demonstrate that we can, and should, not only secure Social Security, but improve it.
But in politics it’s never enough to have truth on one’s side. It will take an army, thousands of people just like Christina, braving the fear and vitriol and standing up for the less fortunate, to transform the debate.
(Roberta Riley is a PSARA member.)
I thought of Christina when I read the latest studies showing that an increasing number of older Americans, especially single women and women of color, are slipping into poverty. Christina died a couple years ago with $15 in her bank account.
My parents first met her in the kitchen of their church, where together they made sandwiches for the homeless. When the residents of Tent City asked to set up camp in the church parking lot after the earthquake of February 2001, an angry mob packed the public meeting. They shouted and screamed, for well over an hour, that the homeless would bring crime, drugs and filth to the neighborhood. Then this tiny, birdlike woman stepped up to the microphone, and told her story.
She was born in Serbia. The ravages of World War II destroyed her home, killing her husband and displacing her and their baby girl to a series of refugee camps. America welcomed mother and child when they emigrated in the 1950s. Soon she found work as a server at Manhattan's Waldorf Astoria hotel. "I love this country,” she said, "but the way we are acting tonight makes me feel ashamed. If this earthquake had destroyed your home, would you want the church to help?"
By the time she finished, you could hear a pin drop.
"It was the most amazing transformation I've ever witnessed," recalls Pastor Rich Lang. She completely changed the tone of the evening, nobody said another word against the homeless, and Tent City was allowed in.
Compassion triumphed over fear because Christina stood up for the less fortunate. She refused to let her own poverty impoverish her spirit. Her kind face, chin length gray hair, and Slavic accent seem to rise from the pages as I pore through Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Finances, by the National Academy of Social Insurance.
She was one of thousands of women in the “most vulnerable” category, whose years of paid work were interrupted because she also cared for others. Her altruism was penalized with minimal Social Security benefits. Yet Fixing Social Security and other studies demonstrate that we have plenty of good options to increase Social Security revenues, securely finance current benefits, and pay for benefit improvements for those most in need.
A related study, by Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), establishes just how critical it is that we update the way we measure poverty in this country, which sets the baseline for Social Security benefits. The antiquated formula, which is based on the cost of food, little else, assumes one person living alone in 2008 could get by on $10,400. But at that level, Christina suffered. She couldn’t afford her medications and pay rent and utilities. The cupboards of her tiny apartment were bare by the third week of the month.
The new, updated measure developed by WOW takes health and other necessary expenses into account. It finds that an older American who lives alone and enjoys good health actually needs about $16,300 to make ends meet if she owns a home mortgage-free. A renter like Christina needs about $20,250, and a homeowner still paying off a mortgage needs approximately $24,000.
We could pay for the benefit increases WOW calls for simply by requiring higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on ALL of their wages. There is no good reason to exempt income above $106,800 from the payroll tax. It is just another tax break for the wealthy.
As this article goes to press, we do not know the outcome of this month’s election, but the latest posturing and misinformation by enemies of Social Security signals that Republicans will soon claim we must raid the Social Security Trust Fund and impose “entitlement reform” to reduce the federal deficit.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate economist, debunks such myths, penciling out the numbers to show that we can secure the existing program for generations to come by simply undoing President Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Fixing Social Security and WOW further demonstrate that we can, and should, not only secure Social Security, but improve it.
But in politics it’s never enough to have truth on one’s side. It will take an army, thousands of people just like Christina, braving the fear and vitriol and standing up for the less fortunate, to transform the debate.
(Roberta Riley is a PSARA member.)
Extreme privatizer named Social Security trustee
The threat to Social Security and Medicare just turned still more sinister.
Charles Blahous, point man for George W. Bush in his abortive campaign to privatize Social Security, has been named one of two Public Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
Blahous, formerly on the staff of Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, was the choice of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blahous is now associated with the far-right Hudson Institute.
The Democrats named Robert Reischauer as trustee. He is a conservative with ties to billionaire Pete Peterson, including membership on the Peterson-funded Committee for a Responsible Budget. If Blahous is clearly an extreme privatizer, Reischauer is at best a lukewarm supporter.
The appointments will weaken Social Security and Medicare from within at a moment when the deficit commission is poised to send its wrecking proposal to Congress.
Charles Blahous, point man for George W. Bush in his abortive campaign to privatize Social Security, has been named one of two Public Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
Blahous, formerly on the staff of Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, was the choice of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Blahous is now associated with the far-right Hudson Institute.
The Democrats named Robert Reischauer as trustee. He is a conservative with ties to billionaire Pete Peterson, including membership on the Peterson-funded Committee for a Responsible Budget. If Blahous is clearly an extreme privatizer, Reischauer is at best a lukewarm supporter.
The appointments will weaken Social Security and Medicare from within at a moment when the deficit commission is poised to send its wrecking proposal to Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)