By Sharon Maeda
The Social Security Administration intends to close its heavily-used Seattle neighborhood offices and require persons seeking any of the agency’s many services to go instead to a single office in the Federal Building.
The move is strongly opposed by community organizations and by 7th District Congressman Jim McDermott. Their concerns about the forbidding requirements to even get into the Federal Building have yet to be addressed by Social Security.
The existing Belltown office at Ninth Avenue and Lenora Street and the International District office at 675 South Lane Street serve about 300 persons per day. Both offices are readily accessible to a clientele that includes immigrants, the elderly, people with disabilities, troubled veterans and the mentally ill. Interpreter services are available.
The Federal Building is a whole other thing.
Can you imagine immigrants, people with disabilities, and folks with PTSD even entering this Level IV high security facility? Valid state or federal identification is demanded. All who enter must pass through a magnetometer. All must pass their belongings though an X-ray machine. Security guards are ever present.
The guards presumably speak only English – a serious problem for elderly immigrants being asked to put their purses, backpacks or wallets on the conveyor belt, or to submit to an electric wand being run all around their bodies. If it’s intimidating to us, what about our elders?
How would innocent persons, seeking only information about their benefits, respond to having an electric want run all around their bodies?
On the streets outside there are just two handicapped parking spaces. Commercial parking is expensive. Even when a friend or family member offers to drive, there’s no place to park!
At the long-established neighborhood offices, valid identification is not needed. There are no magnetometers or x-ray machines. Employees can interpret for non-English speaking visitors in several languages. Telephone interpreter service is also available. There is plenty of free or low-cost parking nearby.
Low-income visitors who can’t afford a state identification card, clients with disabilities and those with limited or no ability to speak English deserve to be served in their communities.
The change in offices would guarantee that many innocent persons, fearful of running the Federal Building gauntlet, would forfeit not only the information they need, but the benefits they may be entitled to.
PSARA is strongly opposing the move to the Federal Building. There’s still time to rescind this harsh, bureaucratic decision. Call Social Security Regional Commissioner Stanley Friendship at 206-615-2100. Urge that low-income visitors who cannot afford to purchase a state ID card, clients with disabilities, and those with limited or no English continue to be served in their own communities.
It’s simple justice.
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Terry O’Neil to speak at U.W. forum on Social Security
Terry O’Neil, the highly respected national president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), will address “The Threat to Social Security: An Issue for All Generations” at a forum from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. Thursday,. November 21, at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus. (See flyer insert.)
Ms. O’Neil will discuss recent Washington D.C. developments concerning Social Security and the steps we can take to protect and improve this vital program.
Ms. O’Neil will headline a trio of speakers at the forum, sponsored by the Social Security Works Washington, a broad coalition of community and labor groups representing people across the state.
Also on the program is Congressman Jim McDermott, co-sponsor of HR 539, a bill to “scrap the cap” on payroll taxes so that high-income earners pay their fair share to keep Social Security fully solvent for the next 75 years. Representative McDermott is knowledgeable, both about how Social Security operates and also about its impact on the lives of everyday people.
A third speaker is Ron Sims, former King County Executive and retired deputy director of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. He will discuss the critical role Social Security plays in the lives of people in our communities.
A recent similar forum at Everett Community College drew an audience of 200 persons, about one-third of them under the age of 30. The forum was co-sponsored by Social Security Works WA, the Everett Community College Department of Political Science, and the Snohomish County Labor Council.
The Social Security Works WA Coalition has targeted outreach to three populations: young people, women and seniors. Young people are targeted because many of them know very little about Social Security and have been led to believe it will not be there for them when they get older. The coalition seeks to dispel that myth, and to persuade them to join the fight to preserve and strengthen Social Security so it will be there when they need it.
The coalition seeks to reach women because women live longer, and therefore rely longer on Social Security. In addition, women suffer wage disparities, leading to lower Social Security benefits. They also suffer a significant loss of income with the death of a spouse. Additionally, women heads of household more frequently rely on survivor benefits as a result of a spouse dying.
All these disparity problems could be addressed if the “earnings cap” were eliminated.
Note also that because women vote in greater numbers, they can strongly influence the positions taken by elected representatives.
Finally, seniors as a group are fully aware of the critical role of Social Security in their lives. They are a huge and growing voting block. Politicians are playing with fire if they mess around with Social Security benefits of seniors. Our goal is to rally the senior generation to tell the politicians, “Don’t you dare mess around with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.”
Ms. O’Neil will discuss recent Washington D.C. developments concerning Social Security and the steps we can take to protect and improve this vital program.
Ms. O’Neil will headline a trio of speakers at the forum, sponsored by the Social Security Works Washington, a broad coalition of community and labor groups representing people across the state.
Also on the program is Congressman Jim McDermott, co-sponsor of HR 539, a bill to “scrap the cap” on payroll taxes so that high-income earners pay their fair share to keep Social Security fully solvent for the next 75 years. Representative McDermott is knowledgeable, both about how Social Security operates and also about its impact on the lives of everyday people.
A third speaker is Ron Sims, former King County Executive and retired deputy director of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs. He will discuss the critical role Social Security plays in the lives of people in our communities.
A recent similar forum at Everett Community College drew an audience of 200 persons, about one-third of them under the age of 30. The forum was co-sponsored by Social Security Works WA, the Everett Community College Department of Political Science, and the Snohomish County Labor Council.
The Social Security Works WA Coalition has targeted outreach to three populations: young people, women and seniors. Young people are targeted because many of them know very little about Social Security and have been led to believe it will not be there for them when they get older. The coalition seeks to dispel that myth, and to persuade them to join the fight to preserve and strengthen Social Security so it will be there when they need it.
The coalition seeks to reach women because women live longer, and therefore rely longer on Social Security. In addition, women suffer wage disparities, leading to lower Social Security benefits. They also suffer a significant loss of income with the death of a spouse. Additionally, women heads of household more frequently rely on survivor benefits as a result of a spouse dying.
All these disparity problems could be addressed if the “earnings cap” were eliminated.
Note also that because women vote in greater numbers, they can strongly influence the positions taken by elected representatives.
Finally, seniors as a group are fully aware of the critical role of Social Security in their lives. They are a huge and growing voting block. Politicians are playing with fire if they mess around with Social Security benefits of seniors. Our goal is to rally the senior generation to tell the politicians, “Don’t you dare mess around with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.”
The Koch brothers hate Social Security
By Mike Andrew
Charles and David Koch, the right-wing billionaires who financed the Tea Party, have poured millions of dollars into destroying Social Security.
They learned to hate Social Security quite literally at their daddy’s knee. Their father, Fred Koch, was one of the founders and the principal financial backer of the John Birch Society, the secretive ultra-right organization of the Fifties and Sixties.
David and Charles have surpassed their father’s efforts by far, however.
According to Brave New Foundation, a social justice research group, the Koch brothers have spent more than $28 million to create what amounts to an entire anti-Social Security industry.
Koch-financed spokespeople, front groups, think tanks, and academics have produced no fewer than 297 commentaries, 200 reports, 56 studies, and 6 full-length books full of distortions of Social Security’s record of effective service.
The Brave New Foundation investigation reveals Koch-supported policies – and even specific language – repeated in each document they studied, raising the retirement age or eliminating cost of living adjustments, for example.
All of this adds up to “a self-sustaining echo chamber to transform fringe ideas into popular mainstream public policy arguments,” Brave New Foundation says.
This “echo chamber” includes think tanks like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and Mercatus Centre at George Mason University and the Reason Foundation, which owe their existence to Koch backing.
Their distorted message is then reported as fact on TV shows like Fox News’s Hannity, with 3.3 million viewers per episode, or CNBC's Kudlow Report, with 300,000 viewers per episode, night after night after night.
As an article in The Nation magazine points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” that phrase comes directly from the Koch propaganda machine.
The Koch brothers have even been able to influence the messaging for the AARP. which recently opened the door to cutting Social Security benefits.
Koch Industries spent $857,000 on lobbyists in 2004, the year before George W Bush tried and failed to privatise social security. They also donated $104,660 to his campaign.
While their attacks on Social Security were not successful in 2004, they have not retreated.
Just the opposite, in fact. They have used the country’s economic crisis as an excuse to increase their attacks.
In the first two years of the Obama administration, the Koch brothers spent $20 million on lobbying, according to the Centre for Public Integrity.
"The Koch brothers fund organizations, and you have economists and political scientists working there, and they are very, very good at getting on television," Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said. "They are very effective in getting their positions out into the media."
The brothers have diversified their donations to Republican leaders, and also to strategic Democrats who oppose revenue increases like Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY).
Traditional lobbying has now given way to a larger, more insidious propaganda campaign aimed at changing the terms of debate not only on Social Security, but on the role of government and social spending in general.
"The Koch brothers’ job is to do everything they can to dismember government in general," Sen. Sanders says. "If you can destroy social security, you will have gone a long way forward in that effort."
Charles and David Koch, the right-wing billionaires who financed the Tea Party, have poured millions of dollars into destroying Social Security.
They learned to hate Social Security quite literally at their daddy’s knee. Their father, Fred Koch, was one of the founders and the principal financial backer of the John Birch Society, the secretive ultra-right organization of the Fifties and Sixties.
David and Charles have surpassed their father’s efforts by far, however.
According to Brave New Foundation, a social justice research group, the Koch brothers have spent more than $28 million to create what amounts to an entire anti-Social Security industry.
Koch-financed spokespeople, front groups, think tanks, and academics have produced no fewer than 297 commentaries, 200 reports, 56 studies, and 6 full-length books full of distortions of Social Security’s record of effective service.
The Brave New Foundation investigation reveals Koch-supported policies – and even specific language – repeated in each document they studied, raising the retirement age or eliminating cost of living adjustments, for example.
All of this adds up to “a self-sustaining echo chamber to transform fringe ideas into popular mainstream public policy arguments,” Brave New Foundation says.
This “echo chamber” includes think tanks like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and Mercatus Centre at George Mason University and the Reason Foundation, which owe their existence to Koch backing.
Their distorted message is then reported as fact on TV shows like Fox News’s Hannity, with 3.3 million viewers per episode, or CNBC's Kudlow Report, with 300,000 viewers per episode, night after night after night.
As an article in The Nation magazine points out, when Texas Governor Rick Perry calls Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” that phrase comes directly from the Koch propaganda machine.
The Koch brothers have even been able to influence the messaging for the AARP. which recently opened the door to cutting Social Security benefits.
Koch Industries spent $857,000 on lobbyists in 2004, the year before George W Bush tried and failed to privatise social security. They also donated $104,660 to his campaign.
While their attacks on Social Security were not successful in 2004, they have not retreated.
Just the opposite, in fact. They have used the country’s economic crisis as an excuse to increase their attacks.
In the first two years of the Obama administration, the Koch brothers spent $20 million on lobbying, according to the Centre for Public Integrity.
"The Koch brothers fund organizations, and you have economists and political scientists working there, and they are very, very good at getting on television," Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said. "They are very effective in getting their positions out into the media."
The brothers have diversified their donations to Republican leaders, and also to strategic Democrats who oppose revenue increases like Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY).
Traditional lobbying has now given way to a larger, more insidious propaganda campaign aimed at changing the terms of debate not only on Social Security, but on the role of government and social spending in general.
"The Koch brothers’ job is to do everything they can to dismember government in general," Sen. Sanders says. "If you can destroy social security, you will have gone a long way forward in that effort."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Danger ahead for Social Security
By Rap Lewis
A battle to protect Social Security for present and future generations is under way in Congress, with danger signals flashing red.
In a March 18 letter to President Obama, 64 senators – 32 Democrats and 32 Republicans – called for discussions on government spending, including “entitlement reform.” They urged the President to “engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit-reduction package.”
The talks should cover “discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform,” the letter said. It endorsed the report issued by Obama’s fiscal commission as a starting point for the discussion.
The letter follows a House Republican proposal for a crippling $1.7 billion slash in the funds the Social Security Administration (SSA) needs to run the agency efficiently through the remaining months of 2011.
A budget cut of $1.7 billion could compel the agency to close its doors for a full month, creating a backlog of 400,000 unprocessed retirement and survivor claims.
In addition, about 290,000 initial disability benefit applications would not be processed, materially worsening the already serious disability claims backlog.
One hundred and fifteen House members – including 7th District Rep. Jim McDermott – have signed a letter to Speaker John Boehner urging him to protect the SSA’s full administrative budget.
“Social Security didn’t cause the current deficits and the services provided by the SSA are indispensable,” the signers told Boehner.
In White House discussions, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others on President Obama’s economic team have been urging Obama to be open to benefit reductions and to a further rise in the age of full retirement to 68 or 69. Obama’s political advisors, on the other hand, are warning that endorsing any cuts in Social Security would be disastrous to the President’s 2012 election hopes.
Further highlighting the perilous situation, a bipartisan team in the Senate is drafting a broad deficit-reduction package that is likely to include Social Security “reform” – that is, cuts in benefits or a further raise in the age of full retirement.
Senator Tom Coburn (R, Okla.), Senate Budget Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois are using the report of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission as a starting point in seeking agreement on a deficit reduction passage. Another bad sign.
The negative signals from Congress underline the urgency of the Social Security Works coalition generating the strongest possible defense of this most basic social insurance program. The deficit hawks are hovering, claws extended.
A battle to protect Social Security for present and future generations is under way in Congress, with danger signals flashing red.
In a March 18 letter to President Obama, 64 senators – 32 Democrats and 32 Republicans – called for discussions on government spending, including “entitlement reform.” They urged the President to “engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit-reduction package.”
The talks should cover “discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform,” the letter said. It endorsed the report issued by Obama’s fiscal commission as a starting point for the discussion.
The letter follows a House Republican proposal for a crippling $1.7 billion slash in the funds the Social Security Administration (SSA) needs to run the agency efficiently through the remaining months of 2011.
A budget cut of $1.7 billion could compel the agency to close its doors for a full month, creating a backlog of 400,000 unprocessed retirement and survivor claims.
In addition, about 290,000 initial disability benefit applications would not be processed, materially worsening the already serious disability claims backlog.
One hundred and fifteen House members – including 7th District Rep. Jim McDermott – have signed a letter to Speaker John Boehner urging him to protect the SSA’s full administrative budget.
“Social Security didn’t cause the current deficits and the services provided by the SSA are indispensable,” the signers told Boehner.
In White House discussions, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others on President Obama’s economic team have been urging Obama to be open to benefit reductions and to a further rise in the age of full retirement to 68 or 69. Obama’s political advisors, on the other hand, are warning that endorsing any cuts in Social Security would be disastrous to the President’s 2012 election hopes.
Further highlighting the perilous situation, a bipartisan team in the Senate is drafting a broad deficit-reduction package that is likely to include Social Security “reform” – that is, cuts in benefits or a further raise in the age of full retirement.
Senator Tom Coburn (R, Okla.), Senate Budget Chair Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois are using the report of the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission as a starting point in seeking agreement on a deficit reduction passage. Another bad sign.
The negative signals from Congress underline the urgency of the Social Security Works coalition generating the strongest possible defense of this most basic social insurance program. The deficit hawks are hovering, claws extended.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Turning point for the nation’s future
By Will Parry
The union men and women of Wisconsin are in the front lines of a battle whose outcome may well determine the future course of the nation.
The corporate-backed right wing is riding high, using an economic crisis the working people had no part in creating to launch a crushing offensive against organized labor.
Labor and its allies are fighting back with massive rallies in the nation’s capitols. A heroic band of legislative champions is challenging the union busters in Congress and the state houses.
An immediate flash point is the expiration of Congress’ continuing resolution, or CR, on Friday, March 4. As these words are written, Congress is tied in knots over whether, and under what circumstances, to extend the CR, which has governed federal expenditures the over five months since the start of the new fiscal year on October 1.
Stark partisan differences make it obvious that no budget for fiscal year 2011 will be in place by March 4. Without a further extension of the CR, the government will shut down, wreaking havoc with funding for programs people depend on for survival.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is the most critical of the many programs whose funding is endangered. The CR has already required a partial hiring freeze, likely to result in the loss of 2,500 jobs. Now the 2011 budget plan proposed by the House Republicans would impose a further $1.7 billion reduction in SSA funding for the remainder of 2011.
With a cut so drastic, the entire agency would have to shut down all operations for 20 working days. Phones would not be answered. Field offices would be closed. Claims processing would halt. Over half a million new retirees, disabled workers and survivors would be forced into a backlog before receiving the benefits they have earned.
No $1.7 billion reduction is going to pass in the Senate. But unless the CR is continued, lesser but still severe program cuts are inevitable.
The budget hawks of the right-wing attack machine are exploiting the economic crisis to eviscerate or eliminate valuable government programs, but they balk at cutting the monstrous war expenditures, or taxing the millionaires and billionaires who have prospered richly at a time when millions are unemployed and suffering.
Last year, the top 13 U.S. hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each. One of them took home $5 billion. Much of their income is taxed as capital gains at 15 percent. If the earnings of the 13 were taxed as ordinary income, the revenues generated would pay the salaries and benefits of 300,000 teachers, Robert Reich reports.
Teachers like those demonstrating in the streets of Madison and Olympia for their sacred collective bargaining rights.
Yes, the millions of public workers are on the front lines today, defending their modest pay and benefits, and the pensions they have earned over a full working life – and defending democracy at the same time.
The Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans is with them all the way. Our retirement security, and that of our children and grandchildren, is on the line as well.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Calling the White House!
Before the State of the Union address, the Social Security Works WA coalition held open and productive meetings, facilitated by PSARA President Robby Stern, with Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. At both meetings, representatives of coalition organizations spoke of the critical role Social Security plays in their lives and in the lives of their members.
They also discussed the political damage done when Obama put Social Security “on the table” in deficit reduction negotiations, and the further damage that could be caused if the president referred to cutting benefits or raising the retirement age during his address.
Both senators pledged to contact the White House, urging the president either to stress the need to defend Social Security or simply not to mention the program at all. Both senators followed through with their commitments, and both let the coalition know that Obama would not call for cutting benefits and raising the retirement age.
Washington’s senators have clout. Murray is in the Senate leadership and chairs the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Cantwell is an influential member of the Senate Finance Committee, and a champion of legislation to improve the Social Security COLA formula.
“The two senators let Social Security Works WA know they found the face-to-face meetings informative and helpful,” Stern said. “Together with our Alliance colleagues across the nation, we can take pride in having influenced, in a positive way, the content of the president’s address.”
Will Parry
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY: THE FIGHT AHEAD
by Robby Stern
The “compromise “ that was struck by the Obama administration and Republican leadership, and for which most Republicans and far too many Democrats voted, has done significant damage to Social Security. The “one year” 2% reduction of the worker contribution to the Social Security Trust Fund and the decision to reimburse the Trust Fund from the general fund has demonstrated the willingness of our President to use Social Security in political horse trading.
The damage to the integrity of the program is extensive and permanent since Social Security will no longer be considered the “Third Rail”. It is now, as a result of this deal, just another government program that can be part of what is considered a “reasonable” political compromise.
Some proponents of the compromise argue that the reduction is only for one year and the Trust Fund will be reimbursed. That argument is lacking in political reality. It is unlikely that Congress will allow the tax reduction to lapse in 2012, an election year. The argument that Social Security will be reimbursed is hollow. Congress will simply robbing Peter to pay Paul by cutting other essential social programs to provide this reimbursement? Meanwhile, Social Security simply has become, for the first time, another bargaining chip.
In listening to PSARA members it is clear that many consider this compromise an act of political betrayal. Many thought the election of President Obama would herald a time of progressive policies and that Social Security would be immune from the attacks of the former administration. When President Obama appointed Timothy Gietner and Lawrence Sommers, two Wall Street insiders, many of us were concerned that the foxes had been put in charge of the hen house and the Wall Street agenda for privatization of Social Security funds might be revitalized. Nevertheless, many of us significantly modulated our criticism as we wanted to give the newly elected President the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly, the month of December, 2010, has provided those of us who are committed to the protection and improvement of Social Security a bitter dose of reality. First, President Obama’s Fiscal Commission issued recommendations that would do severe damage to Social Security recipients. While the recommendations failed to get the necessary votes to force a “fast track’ vote, they nevertheless did receive bi-partisan support. These recommendations promise to be part of the debate that is coming in the next Congressional session over deficit reduction.
Then, President Obama, negotiated the reduction in the worker share of the Social Security tax for 2011, as part of a package that extended Unemployment Benefits for 13 months, extended Bush era tax cuts and tax credits, and reduced the estate tax that was scheduled to return to the pre-Bush era tax rates..
A statement from the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, a national coalition of 250 organizations said in part, “Using treasury funds to pay for a payroll tax ‘holiday’ is unprecedented in Social Security’s 75 year history – and dangerous. Social Security is very popular with the public because workers pay dedicated contributions and count on the promise of Social Security to be there when they retire, become disabled or die, thereby leaving their benefits to their survivors.”
The statement goes on to say, “The debate over the Bush tax cuts illustrates how difficult it is to return taxes to original levels once tax cuts have been enacted, even when the law includes an expiration date. This will likely be the case again in 2011 as the payroll tax ‘holiday’ expires and the 2012 election campaign begins. Restoring the payroll tax to 6.2% from the reduced rate of 4.2% under the ‘holiday’ will constitute a 48% increase in the payroll tax of every worker. By comparison, the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts involves just a 13% increase to income over $384,000.”
Clearly, the “compromise” has seriously threatened the long term funding for Social Security. We must now gear up for an extended fight to preserve this program at a level that will provide its recipients the income they need to lead lives of dignity. It is truly disheartening that an administration for whom we had such hope has proven itself to be, at best, unreliable and at worst in the pocket of Wall Street interests who would like nothing better than to see Social Security funds invested in Wall Street or else wither on the vine.
We recognize there was a desperately needed extension of unemployment benefits that was intended to make the “compromise’ somewhat attractive. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that Senators Murray and Cantwell voted for the “compromise” as did Rep. Rick Larsen and Rep. Norm Dicks. The poison pill attack on Social Security made this “compromise” unpalatable. We express our gratitude to Reps. McDermott, Inslee, and Smith for their recognition of the damage this “compromise” will do to the majority of people in our country who rely on Social Security or will rely on Social Security in the years to come.
The next step in this battle begins when the new Congress convenes. We can be sure that the new House leadership will move to raise the retirement age and make other cuts to Social Security as part of their deficit reduction proposal . They will try to frame it as cutting Social Security to save it.
A significant group of Democrat and Republican Senators have publicly announced their support for the Commission recommendations. PSARA will join a national effort beginning early January, 2011, to urge President Obama to make no offers of compromise or concession related to Social Security in his State of the Union address. Such a statement will do enormous damage. We will need the help of our Congressional Representatives and Senators, major organizations in our state and all of us individually calling on the White House to do no damage during the State of the Union address.
Our fight promises to be long and demanding. Please get ready to be very active!
The “compromise “ that was struck by the Obama administration and Republican leadership, and for which most Republicans and far too many Democrats voted, has done significant damage to Social Security. The “one year” 2% reduction of the worker contribution to the Social Security Trust Fund and the decision to reimburse the Trust Fund from the general fund has demonstrated the willingness of our President to use Social Security in political horse trading.
The damage to the integrity of the program is extensive and permanent since Social Security will no longer be considered the “Third Rail”. It is now, as a result of this deal, just another government program that can be part of what is considered a “reasonable” political compromise.
Some proponents of the compromise argue that the reduction is only for one year and the Trust Fund will be reimbursed. That argument is lacking in political reality. It is unlikely that Congress will allow the tax reduction to lapse in 2012, an election year. The argument that Social Security will be reimbursed is hollow. Congress will simply robbing Peter to pay Paul by cutting other essential social programs to provide this reimbursement? Meanwhile, Social Security simply has become, for the first time, another bargaining chip.
In listening to PSARA members it is clear that many consider this compromise an act of political betrayal. Many thought the election of President Obama would herald a time of progressive policies and that Social Security would be immune from the attacks of the former administration. When President Obama appointed Timothy Gietner and Lawrence Sommers, two Wall Street insiders, many of us were concerned that the foxes had been put in charge of the hen house and the Wall Street agenda for privatization of Social Security funds might be revitalized. Nevertheless, many of us significantly modulated our criticism as we wanted to give the newly elected President the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly, the month of December, 2010, has provided those of us who are committed to the protection and improvement of Social Security a bitter dose of reality. First, President Obama’s Fiscal Commission issued recommendations that would do severe damage to Social Security recipients. While the recommendations failed to get the necessary votes to force a “fast track’ vote, they nevertheless did receive bi-partisan support. These recommendations promise to be part of the debate that is coming in the next Congressional session over deficit reduction.
Then, President Obama, negotiated the reduction in the worker share of the Social Security tax for 2011, as part of a package that extended Unemployment Benefits for 13 months, extended Bush era tax cuts and tax credits, and reduced the estate tax that was scheduled to return to the pre-Bush era tax rates..
A statement from the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, a national coalition of 250 organizations said in part, “Using treasury funds to pay for a payroll tax ‘holiday’ is unprecedented in Social Security’s 75 year history – and dangerous. Social Security is very popular with the public because workers pay dedicated contributions and count on the promise of Social Security to be there when they retire, become disabled or die, thereby leaving their benefits to their survivors.”
The statement goes on to say, “The debate over the Bush tax cuts illustrates how difficult it is to return taxes to original levels once tax cuts have been enacted, even when the law includes an expiration date. This will likely be the case again in 2011 as the payroll tax ‘holiday’ expires and the 2012 election campaign begins. Restoring the payroll tax to 6.2% from the reduced rate of 4.2% under the ‘holiday’ will constitute a 48% increase in the payroll tax of every worker. By comparison, the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts involves just a 13% increase to income over $384,000.”
Clearly, the “compromise” has seriously threatened the long term funding for Social Security. We must now gear up for an extended fight to preserve this program at a level that will provide its recipients the income they need to lead lives of dignity. It is truly disheartening that an administration for whom we had such hope has proven itself to be, at best, unreliable and at worst in the pocket of Wall Street interests who would like nothing better than to see Social Security funds invested in Wall Street or else wither on the vine.
We recognize there was a desperately needed extension of unemployment benefits that was intended to make the “compromise’ somewhat attractive. Nevertheless, we are disappointed that Senators Murray and Cantwell voted for the “compromise” as did Rep. Rick Larsen and Rep. Norm Dicks. The poison pill attack on Social Security made this “compromise” unpalatable. We express our gratitude to Reps. McDermott, Inslee, and Smith for their recognition of the damage this “compromise” will do to the majority of people in our country who rely on Social Security or will rely on Social Security in the years to come.
The next step in this battle begins when the new Congress convenes. We can be sure that the new House leadership will move to raise the retirement age and make other cuts to Social Security as part of their deficit reduction proposal . They will try to frame it as cutting Social Security to save it.
A significant group of Democrat and Republican Senators have publicly announced their support for the Commission recommendations. PSARA will join a national effort beginning early January, 2011, to urge President Obama to make no offers of compromise or concession related to Social Security in his State of the Union address. Such a statement will do enormous damage. We will need the help of our Congressional Representatives and Senators, major organizations in our state and all of us individually calling on the White House to do no damage during the State of the Union address.
Our fight promises to be long and demanding. Please get ready to be very active!
Millions defenseless in the grip of rising costs
By Will Parry
The nation’s Social Security beneficiaries – more than 58.7 million men, women and children in all – find their standard of living, never luxurious, shrinking year after year because of an outdated and grossly inadequate formula for calculating the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA).
The inadequacy of the formula has been made freshly obvious by its failure to provide any COLA at all either in the current year or in 2011, despite the widespread recognition that living costs continue to rise.
Now a new UCLA study has revealed that “a whole hidden group of adults” over age 65, hitherto not recognized, are in actual need despite their Social Security checks.
Social Security was the primary source of income for 64% of retirees in 2008. One in every three relied on the benefit for at least 90% of their income.
The average Social Security benefit is currently about $1,072 a month, or $12,864 a year. Millions of women, confined to low-wage jobs or out of the labor market entirely as family caregivers, receive substantially less than that amount. Many of those millions are officially living in poverty, as measured by the federal government, with incomes under $10,830 a year.
Now the UCLA study has found that, in California, single persons over age 65, renting a one-bedroom apartment, actually need, not $10,830, but $21,763 -- twice the federal government standard -- to make ends meet.
“There is this whole hidden group of adults in need,” said Susan Smith, program director at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, which commissioned the research. What’s economic reality in California has validity in Washington State and across the U.S., despite state-to-state variations.
The government’s official poverty measure has been criticized for years because it is based on spending patterns when about a third of a family’s income went toward food.
The official poverty threshold was first calculated in the 1950s, using the cost of a nutrition plan described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the bare minimum needed to survive an emergency. It is adjusted annually for inflation, but it doesn’t take into account changing standards of living, regional cost differences, or public benefits and tax credits.
“We don’t spend a third of our income on food,” said Gerald McIntyre, an attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center. “If we did, we’d have no place to live.”
Advocates for the elderly emphasize the failure of the standard to take into account out-of-pocket medical costs, which have risen much faster than the overall cost of living.
Advocates, including the Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging (W4A) and Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), have been lobbying for the adoption of a measure known as the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. Developed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston’s Gerontology Institute, the index is calculated using the latest government data on food, housing, transportation and medical costs.
Attempts to incorporate the index into state and federal law have run into resistance from those worried about the costs of social services.
Governmental inaction leaves older Americans splitting pills, borrowing money from friends and maxing out their credit cards. And relying on Social Security checks that won’t see a COLA in two full years.
The nation’s Social Security beneficiaries – more than 58.7 million men, women and children in all – find their standard of living, never luxurious, shrinking year after year because of an outdated and grossly inadequate formula for calculating the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA).
The inadequacy of the formula has been made freshly obvious by its failure to provide any COLA at all either in the current year or in 2011, despite the widespread recognition that living costs continue to rise.
Now a new UCLA study has revealed that “a whole hidden group of adults” over age 65, hitherto not recognized, are in actual need despite their Social Security checks.
Social Security was the primary source of income for 64% of retirees in 2008. One in every three relied on the benefit for at least 90% of their income.
The average Social Security benefit is currently about $1,072 a month, or $12,864 a year. Millions of women, confined to low-wage jobs or out of the labor market entirely as family caregivers, receive substantially less than that amount. Many of those millions are officially living in poverty, as measured by the federal government, with incomes under $10,830 a year.
Now the UCLA study has found that, in California, single persons over age 65, renting a one-bedroom apartment, actually need, not $10,830, but $21,763 -- twice the federal government standard -- to make ends meet.
“There is this whole hidden group of adults in need,” said Susan Smith, program director at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, which commissioned the research. What’s economic reality in California has validity in Washington State and across the U.S., despite state-to-state variations.
The government’s official poverty measure has been criticized for years because it is based on spending patterns when about a third of a family’s income went toward food.
The official poverty threshold was first calculated in the 1950s, using the cost of a nutrition plan described by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the bare minimum needed to survive an emergency. It is adjusted annually for inflation, but it doesn’t take into account changing standards of living, regional cost differences, or public benefits and tax credits.
“We don’t spend a third of our income on food,” said Gerald McIntyre, an attorney for the National Senior Citizens Law Center. “If we did, we’d have no place to live.”
Advocates for the elderly emphasize the failure of the standard to take into account out-of-pocket medical costs, which have risen much faster than the overall cost of living.
Advocates, including the Washington Association of Area Agencies on Aging (W4A) and Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), have been lobbying for the adoption of a measure known as the Elder Economic Security Standard Index. Developed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Boston’s Gerontology Institute, the index is calculated using the latest government data on food, housing, transportation and medical costs.
Attempts to incorporate the index into state and federal law have run into resistance from those worried about the costs of social services.
Governmental inaction leaves older Americans splitting pills, borrowing money from friends and maxing out their credit cards. And relying on Social Security checks that won’t see a COLA in two full years.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Deficit commission target: Social Security
By Will Parry
At our deadline it appears that the so-called debt reduction plan emerging from the secret deliberations of Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will not get the 14-vote super-majority needed to send it to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
But hold the cheers. The plan is likely to get the support of a majority of the commission’s 18 members, and may become a blueprint for future action by Congress.
In any event, its destructive provisions will poison the political atmosphere as the nation grapples with stark economic realities: More than 25 million unemployed, and millions underwater in their mortgages or facing the prospect of losing their homes to foreclosure.
At the heart of the scheme released by commission Co-Chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is its attack on the integrity of Social Security. As economist Dean Baker points out:
“It is striking that the co-chairs felt the need to address Social Security, even though it was not part of their mandate. The commission’s mandate was to deal with the country’s fiscal problems. Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes, it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit.
“Their proposal would cut benefits for tens of millions of middle class workers who are overwhelmingly dependent on Social Security for their retirement income. It would also raise the retirement age for lower income workers who have seen little increase in life expectancy.”
This august body has earned a reputation as “the Catfood Commission,” in view of the impact of its plan on seniors’ living standards.
The Simpson-Bowles scheme did not go unchallenged. The progressive policy organizations Demos, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Century Foundation released a proposal that “stabilizes debt as a share of the economy without demanding draconian cuts to national investments or to vital safety net programs.”
A separate coalition of labor leaders, liberal groups and economists – the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future – released a similar plan.
Both plans were comparable to that submitted by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), the one commission member to emerge as a staunch champion of Social Security. (See story on Schakowsky’s plan.)
All three progressive proposals call for immediate additional stimulus spending, for financing additional unemployment benefits, for public works projects, and for substantial aid to state and local governments, both to prevent further layoffs of teachers and other public employees and to finance “pro-growth” investments in education, infrastructure, child care and scientific research.
Such stimulus spending is absent from the Simpson-Bowles scheme, with its misguided focus on the federal deficit.
At our deadline it appears that the so-called debt reduction plan emerging from the secret deliberations of Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will not get the 14-vote super-majority needed to send it to Congress for an up-or-down vote.
But hold the cheers. The plan is likely to get the support of a majority of the commission’s 18 members, and may become a blueprint for future action by Congress.
In any event, its destructive provisions will poison the political atmosphere as the nation grapples with stark economic realities: More than 25 million unemployed, and millions underwater in their mortgages or facing the prospect of losing their homes to foreclosure.
At the heart of the scheme released by commission Co-Chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is its attack on the integrity of Social Security. As economist Dean Baker points out:
“It is striking that the co-chairs felt the need to address Social Security, even though it was not part of their mandate. The commission’s mandate was to deal with the country’s fiscal problems. Since Social Security is legally prohibited from ever spending more than it has collected in taxes, it cannot under the law contribute to the deficit.
“Their proposal would cut benefits for tens of millions of middle class workers who are overwhelmingly dependent on Social Security for their retirement income. It would also raise the retirement age for lower income workers who have seen little increase in life expectancy.”
This august body has earned a reputation as “the Catfood Commission,” in view of the impact of its plan on seniors’ living standards.
The Simpson-Bowles scheme did not go unchallenged. The progressive policy organizations Demos, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Century Foundation released a proposal that “stabilizes debt as a share of the economy without demanding draconian cuts to national investments or to vital safety net programs.”
A separate coalition of labor leaders, liberal groups and economists – the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future – released a similar plan.
Both plans were comparable to that submitted by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), the one commission member to emerge as a staunch champion of Social Security. (See story on Schakowsky’s plan.)
All three progressive proposals call for immediate additional stimulus spending, for financing additional unemployment benefits, for public works projects, and for substantial aid to state and local governments, both to prevent further layoffs of teachers and other public employees and to finance “pro-growth” investments in education, infrastructure, child care and scientific research.
Such stimulus spending is absent from the Simpson-Bowles scheme, with its misguided focus on the federal deficit.
Friday, November 5, 2010
‘I’ll defend Social Security’ – Senator Cantwell
Senator Maria Cantwell has declared that she “will do everything I can to strengthen and protect the Social Security program.”
The Washington Democrat made this commitment October 4 in a letter to Social Security Works Washington and to the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
Without mentioning the deficit reduction commission by name, Cantwell said: “Changes to the Social Security program – how it is financed, how benefits are calculated, or decisions about retirement age – should be designed to preserve and strengthen the financial integrity of the program, and should not be a part of the deficit reduction decisions.”
Cantwell expressly hailed “the efforts of Social Security Works Washington and the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans” for their efforts “to protect and strengthen Social Security for current and future generations.”
The Senator’s letter was in response to a request from Social Security Works Washington and PSARA that she join Senator Patty Murray, Representative Jim McDermott, and Eighth District Congressional candidate Suzan delBene in a firm pledge to reject any changes in Social Security that would emasculate the program in the name of tackling the federal budget deficit.
“Social Security is a promise to American workers and their dependents, and changing the rules in the middle of the game by eroding benefits or delaying the retirement age undermines that promise,” Senator Cantwell wrote.
The Washington Democrat made this commitment October 4 in a letter to Social Security Works Washington and to the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
Without mentioning the deficit reduction commission by name, Cantwell said: “Changes to the Social Security program – how it is financed, how benefits are calculated, or decisions about retirement age – should be designed to preserve and strengthen the financial integrity of the program, and should not be a part of the deficit reduction decisions.”
Cantwell expressly hailed “the efforts of Social Security Works Washington and the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans” for their efforts “to protect and strengthen Social Security for current and future generations.”
The Senator’s letter was in response to a request from Social Security Works Washington and PSARA that she join Senator Patty Murray, Representative Jim McDermott, and Eighth District Congressional candidate Suzan delBene in a firm pledge to reject any changes in Social Security that would emasculate the program in the name of tackling the federal budget deficit.
“Social Security is a promise to American workers and their dependents, and changing the rules in the middle of the game by eroding benefits or delaying the retirement age undermines that promise,” Senator Cantwell wrote.
Means testing: Here’s what’s wrong with it
By Nancy Amidei and Will Parry
“Means testing” Social Security is a slick, seductive idea being promoted by Social Security’s enemies, supposedly to address the federal budget deficit. But like proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age, means testing has nothing to do with the deficit, and everything to do with emasculating Social Security.
So how would means testing apply to Social Security? It’s simple: Continue to require everybody to contribute to the Trust Fund from their paychecks, but abandon the established practice of paying benefits based on those contributions. Instead, pay benefits based on “need.” That is, reduce or eliminate benefits for those with incomes above a certain level.
Note that means testing, whatever its form and whatever its rationale, betrays two basic principles of Social Security: First, that benefits be universally available; and second, that a benefit be an earned right. Everyone who works and pays into the system is entitled to a benefit. It’s always worked that way.
That’s why the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and its partners in the Social Security Works/Washington coalition have explicitly rejected means testing: “Principle No. 3: Social Security is an insurance policy, and as such should not be means tested.”
In a survey of nearly 1,500 people last year, hefty majorities said they had no problem with having to pay Social Security taxes. Why the popular support? It’s the program’s universality. People know that that they will receive a monthly Social Security check when they become eligible.
It’s a well understood principle in Washington, DC, that “programs for poor people tend to become poor programs.” Consider a means tested program like TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Only poor people qualify. Eligibility is strict. And the benefits are temporary and meager.
Grotesquely inadequate as it is, TANF is always on the chopping block when government budgets get tight. The wealthy and the powerful do not spring to the defense of TANF. Why should they? They’re means-tested totally out of the program.
In summary, to means test Social Security is to place it on the proverbial slippery slope, its funding without powerful champions, inevitably degenerating into a program no longer recognizable as Social Security, sooner or later to become simply an under-funded twin to TANF. The enemies of Social Security want the program to wither away and die. That’s why they churn out slick arguments for means testing.
(Nancy Amidei is a member of PSARA.)
“Means testing” Social Security is a slick, seductive idea being promoted by Social Security’s enemies, supposedly to address the federal budget deficit. But like proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age, means testing has nothing to do with the deficit, and everything to do with emasculating Social Security.
So how would means testing apply to Social Security? It’s simple: Continue to require everybody to contribute to the Trust Fund from their paychecks, but abandon the established practice of paying benefits based on those contributions. Instead, pay benefits based on “need.” That is, reduce or eliminate benefits for those with incomes above a certain level.
Note that means testing, whatever its form and whatever its rationale, betrays two basic principles of Social Security: First, that benefits be universally available; and second, that a benefit be an earned right. Everyone who works and pays into the system is entitled to a benefit. It’s always worked that way.
That’s why the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans and its partners in the Social Security Works/Washington coalition have explicitly rejected means testing: “Principle No. 3: Social Security is an insurance policy, and as such should not be means tested.”
In a survey of nearly 1,500 people last year, hefty majorities said they had no problem with having to pay Social Security taxes. Why the popular support? It’s the program’s universality. People know that that they will receive a monthly Social Security check when they become eligible.
It’s a well understood principle in Washington, DC, that “programs for poor people tend to become poor programs.” Consider a means tested program like TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). Only poor people qualify. Eligibility is strict. And the benefits are temporary and meager.
Grotesquely inadequate as it is, TANF is always on the chopping block when government budgets get tight. The wealthy and the powerful do not spring to the defense of TANF. Why should they? They’re means-tested totally out of the program.
In summary, to means test Social Security is to place it on the proverbial slippery slope, its funding without powerful champions, inevitably degenerating into a program no longer recognizable as Social Security, sooner or later to become simply an under-funded twin to TANF. The enemies of Social Security want the program to wither away and die. That’s why they churn out slick arguments for means testing.
(Nancy Amidei is a member of PSARA.)
Friday, October 1, 2010
Working to age 70 – the worst idea
By Rap Lewis
Raising the normal Social Security retirement age from 67, where it is currently headed, another three full years to age 70 may well be the worst single idea to emerge from the feverish national discussion about the federal budget deficit.
At a time when millions are in the streets of Europe to protest raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, making our working men and women hang in there even until age 67 is uncivilized. We cannot hold still for any further increase. At age 70, workers should already have been retired on full benefits for at least a decade
Social Security has never contributed one penny to the budget deficit. Its funding is separate and as it stands the program will remain solvent for almost 30 years. Even raising the retirement age to 90 wouldn’t address the budget deficit.
But any increase beyond 67 would mean a substantial reduction in the already modest benefit checks of every man and woman who retires after the effective date of the change.
Above all, a higher retirement age is cruel economic punishment to the millions of workers who, for many reasons, simply cannot continue grinding it out day after day anywhere close to the age of 70.
Data in the Current Population Survey and in the Occupational Information Network spell out the numbers who would be driven by the nature of their work into early retirement at reduced benefits. In 2009, about 6.5 million workers age 58 and older had physically demanding jobs, involving lifting, handling or moving objects, spending significant time standing, or doing other physically demanding work.
Another 5 million workers age 58 and older had jobs with difficult working conditions, including cramped working space, labor outdoors, exposure to contaminants or to abnormal temperatures, hazardous equipment, or excessive noise.
We’re talking about factory workers, nursing home workers, construction workers, hotel maids, coal miners and farm workers, among many difficult or dangerous occupations.
There are also millions trapped by the current recession in long-term unemployment, with uncertain prospects for ever working again. Among them are all those whose work experience is dated, already replaced by younger workers with the required newer skills.
As the recession drags on, instances of age discrimination multiply. Challenging such discrimination has just been made much more difficult by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision shifting the burden of proof to the worker.
Increases in life expectancy are used to rationalize a later retirement age. But life expectancy statistics need close scrutiny. The National Council of Women’s Organizations reports that “increased longevity is linked to income and education and does not mean that people are able to work longer before receiving their Social Security benefits.”
Over the last century, although life expectancy at birth has increased significantly for both men and women, a major part of the increase has been between birth and age 20.
Moreover, most of the improvement in life expectancy has occurred among higher-income and more educated men. Lower-income and less educated men have seen little or no change.
Women’s overall life expectancy has stagnated. Lower-income women have seen actual declines in life expectancy.
Under these circumstances, to extend the retirement age even one year – never mind to 70 -- is to impose cruel and indefensible punishment on millions who have committed no offense except the graying of hair and the multiple health problems that come with aging.
Raising the normal Social Security retirement age from 67, where it is currently headed, another three full years to age 70 may well be the worst single idea to emerge from the feverish national discussion about the federal budget deficit.
At a time when millions are in the streets of Europe to protest raising the retirement age from 60 to 62, making our working men and women hang in there even until age 67 is uncivilized. We cannot hold still for any further increase. At age 70, workers should already have been retired on full benefits for at least a decade
Social Security has never contributed one penny to the budget deficit. Its funding is separate and as it stands the program will remain solvent for almost 30 years. Even raising the retirement age to 90 wouldn’t address the budget deficit.
But any increase beyond 67 would mean a substantial reduction in the already modest benefit checks of every man and woman who retires after the effective date of the change.
Above all, a higher retirement age is cruel economic punishment to the millions of workers who, for many reasons, simply cannot continue grinding it out day after day anywhere close to the age of 70.
Data in the Current Population Survey and in the Occupational Information Network spell out the numbers who would be driven by the nature of their work into early retirement at reduced benefits. In 2009, about 6.5 million workers age 58 and older had physically demanding jobs, involving lifting, handling or moving objects, spending significant time standing, or doing other physically demanding work.
Another 5 million workers age 58 and older had jobs with difficult working conditions, including cramped working space, labor outdoors, exposure to contaminants or to abnormal temperatures, hazardous equipment, or excessive noise.
We’re talking about factory workers, nursing home workers, construction workers, hotel maids, coal miners and farm workers, among many difficult or dangerous occupations.
There are also millions trapped by the current recession in long-term unemployment, with uncertain prospects for ever working again. Among them are all those whose work experience is dated, already replaced by younger workers with the required newer skills.
As the recession drags on, instances of age discrimination multiply. Challenging such discrimination has just been made much more difficult by the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision shifting the burden of proof to the worker.
Increases in life expectancy are used to rationalize a later retirement age. But life expectancy statistics need close scrutiny. The National Council of Women’s Organizations reports that “increased longevity is linked to income and education and does not mean that people are able to work longer before receiving their Social Security benefits.”
Over the last century, although life expectancy at birth has increased significantly for both men and women, a major part of the increase has been between birth and age 20.
Moreover, most of the improvement in life expectancy has occurred among higher-income and more educated men. Lower-income and less educated men have seen little or no change.
Women’s overall life expectancy has stagnated. Lower-income women have seen actual declines in life expectancy.
Under these circumstances, to extend the retirement age even one year – never mind to 70 -- is to impose cruel and indefensible punishment on millions who have committed no offense except the graying of hair and the multiple health problems that come with aging.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Social Security: It’s there for all of us
By Marilyn Watkins
For 75 years, Social Security has been the foundation of economic security for Americans. It represents the best of American values, rewarding hard work, looking out for family and community, and honoring the contributions retirees have made to our current prosperity.
Despite its success and overwhelming popularity, the program faces two serious threats – but not the ones mainstream media have focused on.
The first threat is that the majority of young people are convinced they’ll never get Social Security. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that three fourths of those 18 to 34 believe they won’t receive Social Security when they retire. Even 56% of retirees believe their benefits will be cut. That level of resigned skepticism means voters are less likely to demand that Congress protect and strengthen the program.
The second threat stems from the deficit reduction frenzy. President Obama’s commission to consider ways to reduce the federal deficit is to make recommendations to Congress by December 1. Congressional leadership has agreed to an up or down vote. Prominent among the “solutions” under consideration are cuts to future Social Security benefits.
But Social Security has run surpluses for decades. It is in no way responsible for the federal deficit, nor does it face any looming crisis that needs to be “fixed.” Let’s take a look at the facts.
Social Security is not only the main source of income for seniors. Young Americans and their children are protected by its disability and survivors insurance if the unthinkable happens. In 2009, 3.4 million children through age 19 received Social Security benefits directly, and more than 3 million children lived in households with a beneficiary.
Social Security is also solidly financed. Its resources can continue to provide growing benefits clear through the end of the century.
When Social Security did face a financing problem during the 1970s and early 1980s, Congress raised benefits, instituted automatic COLAs, and raised payroll taxes both to finance those improvements and to build up the Trust Fund for the retirement of the baby boomers. The Trust Fund has now grown to $2.5 trillion.
When we deposit money in the bank, we receive interest because the bank loans out those funds for investments in homes and businesses. So, too, the federal government “invests” the Trust Fund in college loans, Head Start, transportation projects, basic research, and public structures that benefit all Americans.
Such investments make the future workforce more productive and boost economic growth. In the long run this means more revenue for Social Security. Loans from Social Security also enable the federal government to borrow less from individuals and foreign governments, and to keep personal income and corporate taxes low.
Every year, the Social Security Trustees project the program’s finances 75 years into the future. Doing so requires making numerous assumptions about economic growth, productivity, wages, fertility, longevity, immigration rates, and other factors. Three scenarios are created.
Under the assumptions of the “low cost” scenario, the Trust Fund will never be depleted. Under the “Intermediate” scenario, the Fund is projected to continue growing until 2025. Then Social Security will draw down the Fund as planned. In 2037 the assets of the Trust Fund will be depleted and payroll taxes alone will cover 78% of benefits under the current formula.
By that time everyone will be richer because of continuing gains in productivity. Average wages after accounting for inflation are expected to rise from $43,000 in 2010 to $60,000 in 2037. Typical retirement benefits will increase from $17,676 to $24,700 annually. If the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2037, payroll taxes alone would cover benefits averaging about $1,600 more than today’s typical retiree receives after inflation.
If the Fund does run out, Congress could eliminate the arbitrary cap on income subject to payroll taxes (currently $106,800) or adopt some other strategy to maintain the promised level of benefits.
The loudest advocates for reducing Social Security benefits seem to be saying, “To avoid having to cut benefits in the future, we should cut benefits for future recipients now.” What cutting future benefits now really does is allow tax rates on the wealthiest to remain at historic lows.
The Bush tax cuts set the federal income tax on the wealthiest lower than at any point since 1931, except for the years from 1988 to 1992. The Congressional Budget Office says those tax cuts have already increased the deficit by $1.6 trillion, and if extended, will keep future federal revenues well below anticipated expenses – including the cost of making good on the Social Security Trust Fund.
Some argue we must cut benefits because people are living longer. But raising the retirement age or otherwise cutting benefits is both unnecessary and certain to cause hardship. Ongoing increases in productivity mean workers in coming decades will have higher standards of living and be able to support more retirees – just as today a few farmers can feed many urbanites. And people who are in physically demanding jobs or who face early disability often cannot work even to age 65, let alone to 70.
Rather than debating cuts, we should focus on ways to increase benefits for those who are struggling. People of color and women are especially likely to be poor or near poor in their later years. Both groups earn far less than white men and have less access to pensions. Women also live five years longer than men on average, and take more time out of the labor force for family care.
Social Security could be strengthened by:
• Increasing benefits for the lowest income earners;
• Increasing benefits for a surviving spouse to 75% of the couple’s pre-death benefit;
• Providing Family Care Credits; and
• Treating state-recognized same-sex couples and their families equally with heterosexual couples.
A well-orchestrated and lavishly-funded misinformation campaign by Social Security’s opponents, echoed by opportunistic politicians and rarely examined by the media, has convinced most Americans that Social Security is going bankrupt. A proactive campaign of positive reforms is the best way to reach the public with the truth.
Social Security is more important now than ever. Traditional pensions have all but disappeared. Assets have evaporated. Half the workforce has no retirement plan other than Social Security.
We can never predict who will become disabled, who will die young leaving behind dependent children, or who will live to be 100. But we do know that every year a certain percentage of Americans face these challenges.
Social Security is there for the lucky and the unlucky. It is there for all of us. It will continue to be there only if we fight to protect it.
Back to Home
For 75 years, Social Security has been the foundation of economic security for Americans. It represents the best of American values, rewarding hard work, looking out for family and community, and honoring the contributions retirees have made to our current prosperity.
Despite its success and overwhelming popularity, the program faces two serious threats – but not the ones mainstream media have focused on.
The first threat is that the majority of young people are convinced they’ll never get Social Security. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that three fourths of those 18 to 34 believe they won’t receive Social Security when they retire. Even 56% of retirees believe their benefits will be cut. That level of resigned skepticism means voters are less likely to demand that Congress protect and strengthen the program.
The second threat stems from the deficit reduction frenzy. President Obama’s commission to consider ways to reduce the federal deficit is to make recommendations to Congress by December 1. Congressional leadership has agreed to an up or down vote. Prominent among the “solutions” under consideration are cuts to future Social Security benefits.
But Social Security has run surpluses for decades. It is in no way responsible for the federal deficit, nor does it face any looming crisis that needs to be “fixed.” Let’s take a look at the facts.
Social Security is not only the main source of income for seniors. Young Americans and their children are protected by its disability and survivors insurance if the unthinkable happens. In 2009, 3.4 million children through age 19 received Social Security benefits directly, and more than 3 million children lived in households with a beneficiary.
Social Security is also solidly financed. Its resources can continue to provide growing benefits clear through the end of the century.
When Social Security did face a financing problem during the 1970s and early 1980s, Congress raised benefits, instituted automatic COLAs, and raised payroll taxes both to finance those improvements and to build up the Trust Fund for the retirement of the baby boomers. The Trust Fund has now grown to $2.5 trillion.
When we deposit money in the bank, we receive interest because the bank loans out those funds for investments in homes and businesses. So, too, the federal government “invests” the Trust Fund in college loans, Head Start, transportation projects, basic research, and public structures that benefit all Americans.
Such investments make the future workforce more productive and boost economic growth. In the long run this means more revenue for Social Security. Loans from Social Security also enable the federal government to borrow less from individuals and foreign governments, and to keep personal income and corporate taxes low.
Every year, the Social Security Trustees project the program’s finances 75 years into the future. Doing so requires making numerous assumptions about economic growth, productivity, wages, fertility, longevity, immigration rates, and other factors. Three scenarios are created.
Under the assumptions of the “low cost” scenario, the Trust Fund will never be depleted. Under the “Intermediate” scenario, the Fund is projected to continue growing until 2025. Then Social Security will draw down the Fund as planned. In 2037 the assets of the Trust Fund will be depleted and payroll taxes alone will cover 78% of benefits under the current formula.
By that time everyone will be richer because of continuing gains in productivity. Average wages after accounting for inflation are expected to rise from $43,000 in 2010 to $60,000 in 2037. Typical retirement benefits will increase from $17,676 to $24,700 annually. If the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2037, payroll taxes alone would cover benefits averaging about $1,600 more than today’s typical retiree receives after inflation.
If the Fund does run out, Congress could eliminate the arbitrary cap on income subject to payroll taxes (currently $106,800) or adopt some other strategy to maintain the promised level of benefits.
The loudest advocates for reducing Social Security benefits seem to be saying, “To avoid having to cut benefits in the future, we should cut benefits for future recipients now.” What cutting future benefits now really does is allow tax rates on the wealthiest to remain at historic lows.
The Bush tax cuts set the federal income tax on the wealthiest lower than at any point since 1931, except for the years from 1988 to 1992. The Congressional Budget Office says those tax cuts have already increased the deficit by $1.6 trillion, and if extended, will keep future federal revenues well below anticipated expenses – including the cost of making good on the Social Security Trust Fund.
Some argue we must cut benefits because people are living longer. But raising the retirement age or otherwise cutting benefits is both unnecessary and certain to cause hardship. Ongoing increases in productivity mean workers in coming decades will have higher standards of living and be able to support more retirees – just as today a few farmers can feed many urbanites. And people who are in physically demanding jobs or who face early disability often cannot work even to age 65, let alone to 70.
Rather than debating cuts, we should focus on ways to increase benefits for those who are struggling. People of color and women are especially likely to be poor or near poor in their later years. Both groups earn far less than white men and have less access to pensions. Women also live five years longer than men on average, and take more time out of the labor force for family care.
Social Security could be strengthened by:
• Increasing benefits for the lowest income earners;
• Increasing benefits for a surviving spouse to 75% of the couple’s pre-death benefit;
• Providing Family Care Credits; and
• Treating state-recognized same-sex couples and their families equally with heterosexual couples.
A well-orchestrated and lavishly-funded misinformation campaign by Social Security’s opponents, echoed by opportunistic politicians and rarely examined by the media, has convinced most Americans that Social Security is going bankrupt. A proactive campaign of positive reforms is the best way to reach the public with the truth.
Social Security is more important now than ever. Traditional pensions have all but disappeared. Assets have evaporated. Half the workforce has no retirement plan other than Social Security.
We can never predict who will become disabled, who will die young leaving behind dependent children, or who will live to be 100. But we do know that every year a certain percentage of Americans face these challenges.
Social Security is there for the lucky and the unlucky. It is there for all of us. It will continue to be there only if we fight to protect it.
Back to Home
Alan Simpson must go
Alan Simpson, the co-chair who should never have been appointed to the deficit reduction commission that should never have been established, should resign now or be fired forthwith by the President who appointed him.
Simpson has written his own ticket:
By calling Social Security “a milk cow with 310 million tits.”
By insulting a distinguished woman, Executive Director Ashley Carson of OWL, the Older Women’s League, accusing her of “babbling into the vapors” and inviting her to “call when you get honest work.”
By calling Americans who rely on Social Security “greedy geezers” and “lesser people.”
If there is a “lesser person” in America, it is Alan Simpson.
Ashley Carson speaks for us when she says: “This kind of blatant disrespect for women, and for the social fabric of our country, has no place in a serious discussion about the deficit.”
And OWL speaks for us when it declares:
“Mr. Simpson’s fifteen minutes of sexism and degradation are over. Now is the time for serious people to have serious conversations about how to move our nation forward, protecting the men and women who have worked their whole lives to make this country great.”
Simpson should resign or be fired forthwith by the President. He should also be publicly repudiated by Commission Co-Chair Erskine Bowles and by the full commission.
Back to Home
Simpson has written his own ticket:
By calling Social Security “a milk cow with 310 million tits.”
By insulting a distinguished woman, Executive Director Ashley Carson of OWL, the Older Women’s League, accusing her of “babbling into the vapors” and inviting her to “call when you get honest work.”
By calling Americans who rely on Social Security “greedy geezers” and “lesser people.”
If there is a “lesser person” in America, it is Alan Simpson.
Ashley Carson speaks for us when she says: “This kind of blatant disrespect for women, and for the social fabric of our country, has no place in a serious discussion about the deficit.”
And OWL speaks for us when it declares:
“Mr. Simpson’s fifteen minutes of sexism and degradation are over. Now is the time for serious people to have serious conversations about how to move our nation forward, protecting the men and women who have worked their whole lives to make this country great.”
Simpson should resign or be fired forthwith by the President. He should also be publicly repudiated by Commission Co-Chair Erskine Bowles and by the full commission.
Back to Home
Friday, July 30, 2010
Get ready to celebrate August 16!
Come and bring a friend – bring a carload! – to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Social Security with U.S. Senator Patty Murray as our featured speaker!
Toast Social Security with sparkling cider. Enjoy your slice of the birthday cake provided courtesy of the retired teachers of AFT Washington. Bear witness to our determination to defend our nation’s premier social program!
The event will be held at 1:30 p.m. Monday, August 16, at the Greenwood Senior Center, 525 N. 85th Street in Seattle. Overflow parking and free shuttle service are available at the nearby Greenwood Market, 8500 2nd Avenue N.W., courtesy of the Wallingford Community Senior Center.
Sponsoring the event are the Greenwood Senior Center, the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans, and the 18 organizations affiliated with “Social Security Works – Washington,” the new coalition organized to defend the integrity of Social Security – and to make it better.
The anniversary observance is more than a “feel good” occasion. It will take place at a time of political peril, with members of the President’s Bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform determined to use the federal budget deficit as a pretext to raid the dedicated Social Security Trust Fund.
“We’re shooting for a capacity audience of 300,” said PSARA President Robby Stern. “Please make a special effort to build this anniversary celebration. We’ll invite everyone to sign a mass letter to President Obama and to place cell phone calls to the White House and to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
Toast Social Security with sparkling cider. Enjoy your slice of the birthday cake provided courtesy of the retired teachers of AFT Washington. Bear witness to our determination to defend our nation’s premier social program!
The event will be held at 1:30 p.m. Monday, August 16, at the Greenwood Senior Center, 525 N. 85th Street in Seattle. Overflow parking and free shuttle service are available at the nearby Greenwood Market, 8500 2nd Avenue N.W., courtesy of the Wallingford Community Senior Center.
Sponsoring the event are the Greenwood Senior Center, the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans, and the 18 organizations affiliated with “Social Security Works – Washington,” the new coalition organized to defend the integrity of Social Security – and to make it better.
The anniversary observance is more than a “feel good” occasion. It will take place at a time of political peril, with members of the President’s Bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform determined to use the federal budget deficit as a pretext to raid the dedicated Social Security Trust Fund.
“We’re shooting for a capacity audience of 300,” said PSARA President Robby Stern. “Please make a special effort to build this anniversary celebration. We’ll invite everyone to sign a mass letter to President Obama and to place cell phone calls to the White House and to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”
Robby on the issues ...
Social Security: Principles - and a Pledge
By Robby Stern
As a significant number of Democratic and Republican politicians prepare the political landscape to apply the “Shock Doctrine” of cuts in life-line services to the American people, organizations across the country are preparing to fight back.
The ruling elites in many European countries are also using this world wide economic crisis to attack the entitlement programs and living standards of working people. Recent general strikes in Italy and Greece demonstrate the determination of people to put the blame where it belongs – the banks, financial institutions and investment houses that have caused this terrible recession. Yet rather than holding the wealthy interests accountable, many politicians are increasing the misery of working and poor people by cutting programs for which we have paid all of our working lives.
In the U.S., the government has prosecuted two unpopular and unnecessary wars while providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in our society. And the deficit chickens have come home to roost. After all this reckless and unnecessary spending, they now want to steal from the Social Security Trust Fund to cut the deficit. These same politicians are also threatening to cut other lifeline programs -- Medicaid, the paltry housing subsidies, education, etc. -- and to privatize government services, gutting the wages and benefits of thousands of public service workers.
In response to the central goal of this elitist agenda, a group of organizations, including PSARA, have coalesced to form Social Security Works / Washington. This new coalition has adopted the following Principles:
We join together in support of the right of Americans to Social Security, a promise made to Americans of all generations. Social Security represents the best of American values – rewarding work, honoring our parents and caring for our neighbors. Social Security was established because American workers demanded it. Social Security belongs to the workers and their families who have worked hard, paid taxes in, and earned its benefits.
Due to a loss of employment, wages, private savings and pensions, Social Security has become more important than ever. It is a legacy we are committed to passing on to future generations. In this, Social Security’s 75th Anniversary year, we are united in support of the following principles:
1. Social Security’s financing is sound, now and into the future. For 75 years, working Americans have paid into the system. Their contributions have both supported benefit payments and built a $2.6 trillion Trust Fund. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit and benefits should not be cut to reduce the deficit.
2. Social Security has stood the test of time. It should not be privatized in whole or in part.
3. Social Security is an insurance policy and as such should not be means-tested. Workers pay for this insurance, and they and their dependents are entitled to it regardless of their income or savings.
4. Social Security provides vital protection to Americans of all income levels against the loss of wages as the result of disability, death, or old age. Those benefits should not be reduced in any way, including changes to the cost of living adjustment or to the benefit formula.
5. Social Security’s retirement age, already scheduled to increase from 66 to 67, should not be raised further. Raising the retirement age constitutes a benefit cut. The present age limits already impose a hardship on Americans who work in physically demanding jobs or those unable to find or keep employment.
6. In order to modernize and strengthen benefits and assure long-term stability for future generations, Congress should act to eliminate the earnings cap on contributions.
7. Social Security’s benefits should be strengthened and modernized to reflect the dignity of all work regardless of income, to better cover health and care costs, and to improve fairness. This can be accomplished by: changing the benefit formula to replace a higher percentage of low earnings; providing a care-giving credit for at least 5 years; guaranteeing elderly survivors 75% of the couple’s benefit; and allowing benefits for state-recognized same-sex couples and family members.
In the spirit of these Principles, the Coalition will ask all Washington’s Congressional delegation and viable candidates for Congress to sign this pledge:
Social Security is the only dependable source of income for retired Americans and supports millions of families through its disability and survivors programs. Every working person pays into it and earns benefits.
For 75 years, Social Security has been America’s most trusted institution. It is frugally administered and soundly financed to continue providing a foundation of economic security for future generations.
In the interests of my constituents – the men, women and children who are Social Security’s current and future beneficiaries – I pledge to:
1. Defend the integrity of Social Security against efforts to reduce its benefits or weaken its protections;
2. Support responsible efforts to strengthen Social Security benefits;
3. Oppose any and all efforts to reduce the federal deficit by failing to fully honor obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund, built by the payroll contributions of working Americans.
To win this fight, we will need the active participation of PSARA members, together with millions of Americans across the country. Join us at the 75th birthday celebration for Social Security on Aug. 16th. Help us as we fight for a decent future for the many generations that deserve the benefits of Social Security.
By Robby Stern
As a significant number of Democratic and Republican politicians prepare the political landscape to apply the “Shock Doctrine” of cuts in life-line services to the American people, organizations across the country are preparing to fight back.
The ruling elites in many European countries are also using this world wide economic crisis to attack the entitlement programs and living standards of working people. Recent general strikes in Italy and Greece demonstrate the determination of people to put the blame where it belongs – the banks, financial institutions and investment houses that have caused this terrible recession. Yet rather than holding the wealthy interests accountable, many politicians are increasing the misery of working and poor people by cutting programs for which we have paid all of our working lives.
In the U.S., the government has prosecuted two unpopular and unnecessary wars while providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in our society. And the deficit chickens have come home to roost. After all this reckless and unnecessary spending, they now want to steal from the Social Security Trust Fund to cut the deficit. These same politicians are also threatening to cut other lifeline programs -- Medicaid, the paltry housing subsidies, education, etc. -- and to privatize government services, gutting the wages and benefits of thousands of public service workers.
In response to the central goal of this elitist agenda, a group of organizations, including PSARA, have coalesced to form Social Security Works / Washington. This new coalition has adopted the following Principles:
We join together in support of the right of Americans to Social Security, a promise made to Americans of all generations. Social Security represents the best of American values – rewarding work, honoring our parents and caring for our neighbors. Social Security was established because American workers demanded it. Social Security belongs to the workers and their families who have worked hard, paid taxes in, and earned its benefits.
Due to a loss of employment, wages, private savings and pensions, Social Security has become more important than ever. It is a legacy we are committed to passing on to future generations. In this, Social Security’s 75th Anniversary year, we are united in support of the following principles:
1. Social Security’s financing is sound, now and into the future. For 75 years, working Americans have paid into the system. Their contributions have both supported benefit payments and built a $2.6 trillion Trust Fund. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit and benefits should not be cut to reduce the deficit.
2. Social Security has stood the test of time. It should not be privatized in whole or in part.
3. Social Security is an insurance policy and as such should not be means-tested. Workers pay for this insurance, and they and their dependents are entitled to it regardless of their income or savings.
4. Social Security provides vital protection to Americans of all income levels against the loss of wages as the result of disability, death, or old age. Those benefits should not be reduced in any way, including changes to the cost of living adjustment or to the benefit formula.
5. Social Security’s retirement age, already scheduled to increase from 66 to 67, should not be raised further. Raising the retirement age constitutes a benefit cut. The present age limits already impose a hardship on Americans who work in physically demanding jobs or those unable to find or keep employment.
6. In order to modernize and strengthen benefits and assure long-term stability for future generations, Congress should act to eliminate the earnings cap on contributions.
7. Social Security’s benefits should be strengthened and modernized to reflect the dignity of all work regardless of income, to better cover health and care costs, and to improve fairness. This can be accomplished by: changing the benefit formula to replace a higher percentage of low earnings; providing a care-giving credit for at least 5 years; guaranteeing elderly survivors 75% of the couple’s benefit; and allowing benefits for state-recognized same-sex couples and family members.
In the spirit of these Principles, the Coalition will ask all Washington’s Congressional delegation and viable candidates for Congress to sign this pledge:
Social Security is the only dependable source of income for retired Americans and supports millions of families through its disability and survivors programs. Every working person pays into it and earns benefits.
For 75 years, Social Security has been America’s most trusted institution. It is frugally administered and soundly financed to continue providing a foundation of economic security for future generations.
In the interests of my constituents – the men, women and children who are Social Security’s current and future beneficiaries – I pledge to:
1. Defend the integrity of Social Security against efforts to reduce its benefits or weaken its protections;
2. Support responsible efforts to strengthen Social Security benefits;
3. Oppose any and all efforts to reduce the federal deficit by failing to fully honor obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund, built by the payroll contributions of working Americans.
To win this fight, we will need the active participation of PSARA members, together with millions of Americans across the country. Join us at the 75th birthday celebration for Social Security on Aug. 16th. Help us as we fight for a decent future for the many generations that deserve the benefits of Social Security.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
For all future generations
PSARA’s number one mission in the five months immediately ahead can be summed up in six words: Defend the integrity of Social Security. To protect this basic social program that binds all generations together, we need to build our membership base.
The ominous probability is that the deficit hawks who dominate the fiscal reform commission will call on Congress in December to raid the Social Security trust funds in the name of deficit reduction. We have to make sure Congress says, “No way!”
We know the deficit was caused by tax cuts that funneled billions to the wealthy; by two ongoing wars “on the credit card”; and by the current severe economic crisis, created by Wall Street. We need to get that message to every person we can reach.
That’s why we have to build our membership base. Working with our allies, we intend to call on every member of our Congressional delegation to pledge to “do no harm” to Social Security in the name of deficit reduction. We’re building a Congressional firewall against all such proposals.
Today’s retirees have a duty to fight for a future of economic justice for the oncoming generations, our children and grandchildren. That’s why it’s so urgent to build our membership base.
And that’s why we’re asking you, dear Member, to sign up that relative, friend, neighbor or workmate today. The people at your church, tour senior center, or your community meeting place. We need them; they need us. The coupon is on page 9 and at www.psara.org/join.htm. Sign up that new member today!
Back to Home
The ominous probability is that the deficit hawks who dominate the fiscal reform commission will call on Congress in December to raid the Social Security trust funds in the name of deficit reduction. We have to make sure Congress says, “No way!”
We know the deficit was caused by tax cuts that funneled billions to the wealthy; by two ongoing wars “on the credit card”; and by the current severe economic crisis, created by Wall Street. We need to get that message to every person we can reach.
That’s why we have to build our membership base. Working with our allies, we intend to call on every member of our Congressional delegation to pledge to “do no harm” to Social Security in the name of deficit reduction. We’re building a Congressional firewall against all such proposals.
Today’s retirees have a duty to fight for a future of economic justice for the oncoming generations, our children and grandchildren. That’s why it’s so urgent to build our membership base.
And that’s why we’re asking you, dear Member, to sign up that relative, friend, neighbor or workmate today. The people at your church, tour senior center, or your community meeting place. We need them; they need us. The coupon is on page 9 and at www.psara.org/join.htm. Sign up that new member today!
Back to Home
Robby on the issues:
Saving Social Security from the ‘Hit Men’
by Robby Stern, PSARA President
About a year ago, I heard about the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins on Amy Goodman’s radio news show, “Democracy Now”. Perkins had written the book to express his remorse for the role he played in carrying out the economic policies of the United States Empire, or what he refers to as the “Corporatocracy.” He also wanted to educate the public about what is being done to countries around the world in the name of the people of the United States. I finally read the book last month and it is a simple but stunning read with great relevance to the challenges we face in our country today.
Briefly, very well paid Economic Hit Men travel the world selling huge development programs to the often corrupt leadership of other countries. Often there are bribes or other personal trade offs associated with these efforts. These countries then incur huge debt to the World Bank to build the major construction projects; debts that they will never be able to repay. The contracts for these projects are distributed to multinational corporations like Halliburton, KBR, and others, allowing these companies and their executives to amass very large profits from the coffers of these deeply indebted countries. The tax revenues collected by countries like Indonesia, Panama, Columbia, and others are insufficient to pay the debt incurred in building these projects which leads to draconian cuts in social programs that assist the poor and working poor of these countries.
Perkins asserts that if the Economic Hit Men fail to persuade the leadership of these countries, the “jackals” are called in. He used as examples Jaime Roldos of Ecuador and Omar Torrijos of Panama, both of whom met untimely deaths under very suspicious circumstances. Perkins is convinced it was the “jackals” at work.
This book was quite educational but it also got me thinking about what is going on in our country at this very moment. The “Corporatocracy” and their politician friends have made policy decisions that have enormously enriched the people at the top and the corporations they run through tax cuts, bail outs and privatization. Now they are saying to the American people, our deficit is way too high. They are trying to persuade us that they must cut the programs that serve working class and poor people like Social Security, Medicaid, education, etc. As I write this column, Congress is refusing to provide extensions to unemployment benefits and aid to state Medicaid programs, both desperately needed. It is Congress‘s version of applying to the U.S. the policies that have been foisted on poor and working people around the world.
We must not be fooled and we will fight back. Social Security, Medicaid, etc. are NOT the problems. The tax cuts for the rich and unnecessary wars are the problem. (In Iraq, the goal was gaining control of the oil for the oil companies and also controlling this strategically located country and in Afghanistan, the “newly discovered” mineral riches are going to be developed by the U.S. multinational mining companies.) We must be organized and prepared to fight on many fronts.
One example of our efforts is the success of PSARA volunteers in gathering signatures to place I–1098, a high incomes income tax on the ballot. This initiative is one of the ways to fight back against the growing gap in the distribution of wealth in our country. It will force the wealthy to provide a little fairer share of their income for education and health care when it gets on the ballot and, with our help, passes in November.
PSARA and the ARA are gearing up for a huge battle to defend Social Security. The Washington Post reported that we are facing the biggest threat to Social Security in the 75 years of its existence. PSARA will respond in coalition with others to make sure our Congressional representatives do nothing to harm our Social Security system and the benefits promised to American workers.
Please join us at our general membership meeting on Thursday, July 22. (For details on the meeting, see page 2 of this newsletter.) Your participation will make an enormous difference for our small, (but growing!) feisty and determined organization as we do battle with those who would serve the rich and powerful at the expense of poor and working people.
Back to Home
by Robby Stern, PSARA President
About a year ago, I heard about the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins on Amy Goodman’s radio news show, “Democracy Now”. Perkins had written the book to express his remorse for the role he played in carrying out the economic policies of the United States Empire, or what he refers to as the “Corporatocracy.” He also wanted to educate the public about what is being done to countries around the world in the name of the people of the United States. I finally read the book last month and it is a simple but stunning read with great relevance to the challenges we face in our country today.
Briefly, very well paid Economic Hit Men travel the world selling huge development programs to the often corrupt leadership of other countries. Often there are bribes or other personal trade offs associated with these efforts. These countries then incur huge debt to the World Bank to build the major construction projects; debts that they will never be able to repay. The contracts for these projects are distributed to multinational corporations like Halliburton, KBR, and others, allowing these companies and their executives to amass very large profits from the coffers of these deeply indebted countries. The tax revenues collected by countries like Indonesia, Panama, Columbia, and others are insufficient to pay the debt incurred in building these projects which leads to draconian cuts in social programs that assist the poor and working poor of these countries.
Perkins asserts that if the Economic Hit Men fail to persuade the leadership of these countries, the “jackals” are called in. He used as examples Jaime Roldos of Ecuador and Omar Torrijos of Panama, both of whom met untimely deaths under very suspicious circumstances. Perkins is convinced it was the “jackals” at work.
This book was quite educational but it also got me thinking about what is going on in our country at this very moment. The “Corporatocracy” and their politician friends have made policy decisions that have enormously enriched the people at the top and the corporations they run through tax cuts, bail outs and privatization. Now they are saying to the American people, our deficit is way too high. They are trying to persuade us that they must cut the programs that serve working class and poor people like Social Security, Medicaid, education, etc. As I write this column, Congress is refusing to provide extensions to unemployment benefits and aid to state Medicaid programs, both desperately needed. It is Congress‘s version of applying to the U.S. the policies that have been foisted on poor and working people around the world.
We must not be fooled and we will fight back. Social Security, Medicaid, etc. are NOT the problems. The tax cuts for the rich and unnecessary wars are the problem. (In Iraq, the goal was gaining control of the oil for the oil companies and also controlling this strategically located country and in Afghanistan, the “newly discovered” mineral riches are going to be developed by the U.S. multinational mining companies.) We must be organized and prepared to fight on many fronts.
One example of our efforts is the success of PSARA volunteers in gathering signatures to place I–1098, a high incomes income tax on the ballot. This initiative is one of the ways to fight back against the growing gap in the distribution of wealth in our country. It will force the wealthy to provide a little fairer share of their income for education and health care when it gets on the ballot and, with our help, passes in November.
PSARA and the ARA are gearing up for a huge battle to defend Social Security. The Washington Post reported that we are facing the biggest threat to Social Security in the 75 years of its existence. PSARA will respond in coalition with others to make sure our Congressional representatives do nothing to harm our Social Security system and the benefits promised to American workers.
Please join us at our general membership meeting on Thursday, July 22. (For details on the meeting, see page 2 of this newsletter.) Your participation will make an enormous difference for our small, (but growing!) feisty and determined organization as we do battle with those who would serve the rich and powerful at the expense of poor and working people.
Back to Home
Seventy-five candles at Social Security gala!
A gala celebration of the 75th Birthday of Social Security, with Senator Patty Murray as featured speaker, will be held at the Greenwood Senior Activity Center, 525 N. 85tth Street in Seattle on Monday, August 16, starting at 1:30 p.m.
The event – complete with ceremonial birthday cake – is being co-sponsored by the senior center and the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. Throughout the 75 years of its existence, it has been the nation’s premier social insurance program, protecting millions of seniors, children and adults with disabilities from poverty.
The anniversary event will be a high point in the broadly-based campaign to expose and defeat efforts by the so-called “Fiscal Responsibility” commission to rob the Social Security trust funds to reduce the federal deficit.
The event will celebrate Social Security as a program for all generations, and will emphasize the need both to safeguard Social Security’s current benefits and to strengthen its protections for women, low-income workers and the oldest beneficiaries.
Back to Home
The event – complete with ceremonial birthday cake – is being co-sponsored by the senior center and the Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans.
The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. Throughout the 75 years of its existence, it has been the nation’s premier social insurance program, protecting millions of seniors, children and adults with disabilities from poverty.
The anniversary event will be a high point in the broadly-based campaign to expose and defeat efforts by the so-called “Fiscal Responsibility” commission to rob the Social Security trust funds to reduce the federal deficit.
The event will celebrate Social Security as a program for all generations, and will emphasize the need both to safeguard Social Security’s current benefits and to strengthen its protections for women, low-income workers and the oldest beneficiaries.
Back to Home
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Open Up Those Hearings!
By Robby Stern
“Whatever adjustments we make and whatever has been suggested for the last 10 years in Social Security reform … none of that affects anybody over 57. Where do I get my mail? From these old cats 70 and 80 years old who are not affected one whiff. People who live in gated communities and drive their Lexux to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount. This is madness.” Thus spoke Alan Simpson on April 25th on FOX News in an interview that included his Fiscal Commission co-chair, Chester Bowles..
Evidently, former Sen. Alan Simpson in unaware that the vast majority of Social Security recipients do not fit his profile. More than one third of people 65 and older rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Without Social Security, 55% of severely disabled workers and their families would live in poverty; 47% of elderly households would live in poverty; another 1.3 million children would fall into poverty. Women make up 60% of Social Security beneficiaries and they depend more heavily than men on Social Security for income in their retirement. Additionally, 75% of older Latinos and almost 80% of African Americans rely on Social security for more than half of their total income.
The Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had its first meeting on April 27th. The President addressed the Commission presenting his argument concerning the grave danger facing our country posed by the fiscal deficit. Ben Bernanke, the chief of the Federal Reserve called for a combination of modifications to Medicare and Social Security. At his confirmation hearing for his second term as Federal Reserve Chair this year, Bernanke had recommended cuts to Social Security by quoting notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton, who, when asked why he robbed banks, replied “because that’s where the money is”.
To quote Nancy Altman, Co-Director of Social Security Works at her recent talk at the national ARA convention, “What a revealing picture – bank robbers, Ben Bernanke, and like-minded politicians, all eager to get their hands on the money hardworking Americans trustingly hand over every payday to what they believe is a safe institution. Americans should not be robbed of their Social security protections in order to pay for other government spending.”
The Commissioners, many of whom made statements during the meeting, are split on whether Social Security and Medicare should be targeted with several clearly calling for raising the age when seniors would be entitled to full Social Security benefits. There were also calls for reducing the indexing for the most affluent and changing the CPI (Consumer Price Index) to indexing that grows more slowly and possibly below the rate of inflation.
We will take the creation and work of the Commission very seriously. The Social Security Trust Fund is very healthy. There is a surplus of more than $2.4 trillion in the trust fund. Stories like a recent NY Time article stating that pay outs will exceed collections in 2010 fail to mention that there is another very significant source of revenue for the fund, i.e. the interest earned on the surplus. Social security is a target precisely because that is” where the money is”. It would be a big deficit reduction boon to write off some of the debt to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of dealing with the real causes: the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and the unemployment caused by Wall Street produced recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire and putting people back to work would have an enormous effect in reducing the deficit to 3% of the national economy, the stated goal of the Commission.
At serious risk are the generations behind us who are dutifully paying their taxes to fund their retirement. It is for our children and grand children and the legacy of Social Security as a progressive and essential social insurance program that we must wage a fierce campaign.
Our first task is to exert as much pressure as possible to create transparency in the Commission proceedings. Other than the first session, the Commission will be meeting privately with advocates having little or no access to the deliberations other than what is communicated to them by friendly Commissioners. Private deliberations and decision making is intolerable. We must make our voices heard in demanding openness and transparency.
PSARA will engage in an educational campaign and a determined defense of Social Security. Combining our efforts with genuine suggestions on how to improve what is already one of the best government program in our country, we will need the help and support of all of our members.
“Whatever adjustments we make and whatever has been suggested for the last 10 years in Social Security reform … none of that affects anybody over 57. Where do I get my mail? From these old cats 70 and 80 years old who are not affected one whiff. People who live in gated communities and drive their Lexux to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount. This is madness.” Thus spoke Alan Simpson on April 25th on FOX News in an interview that included his Fiscal Commission co-chair, Chester Bowles..
Evidently, former Sen. Alan Simpson in unaware that the vast majority of Social Security recipients do not fit his profile. More than one third of people 65 and older rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Without Social Security, 55% of severely disabled workers and their families would live in poverty; 47% of elderly households would live in poverty; another 1.3 million children would fall into poverty. Women make up 60% of Social Security beneficiaries and they depend more heavily than men on Social Security for income in their retirement. Additionally, 75% of older Latinos and almost 80% of African Americans rely on Social security for more than half of their total income.
The Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform had its first meeting on April 27th. The President addressed the Commission presenting his argument concerning the grave danger facing our country posed by the fiscal deficit. Ben Bernanke, the chief of the Federal Reserve called for a combination of modifications to Medicare and Social Security. At his confirmation hearing for his second term as Federal Reserve Chair this year, Bernanke had recommended cuts to Social Security by quoting notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton, who, when asked why he robbed banks, replied “because that’s where the money is”.
To quote Nancy Altman, Co-Director of Social Security Works at her recent talk at the national ARA convention, “What a revealing picture – bank robbers, Ben Bernanke, and like-minded politicians, all eager to get their hands on the money hardworking Americans trustingly hand over every payday to what they believe is a safe institution. Americans should not be robbed of their Social security protections in order to pay for other government spending.”
The Commissioners, many of whom made statements during the meeting, are split on whether Social Security and Medicare should be targeted with several clearly calling for raising the age when seniors would be entitled to full Social Security benefits. There were also calls for reducing the indexing for the most affluent and changing the CPI (Consumer Price Index) to indexing that grows more slowly and possibly below the rate of inflation.
We will take the creation and work of the Commission very seriously. The Social Security Trust Fund is very healthy. There is a surplus of more than $2.4 trillion in the trust fund. Stories like a recent NY Time article stating that pay outs will exceed collections in 2010 fail to mention that there is another very significant source of revenue for the fund, i.e. the interest earned on the surplus. Social security is a target precisely because that is” where the money is”. It would be a big deficit reduction boon to write off some of the debt to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of dealing with the real causes: the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and the unemployment caused by Wall Street produced recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire and putting people back to work would have an enormous effect in reducing the deficit to 3% of the national economy, the stated goal of the Commission.
At serious risk are the generations behind us who are dutifully paying their taxes to fund their retirement. It is for our children and grand children and the legacy of Social Security as a progressive and essential social insurance program that we must wage a fierce campaign.
Our first task is to exert as much pressure as possible to create transparency in the Commission proceedings. Other than the first session, the Commission will be meeting privately with advocates having little or no access to the deliberations other than what is communicated to them by friendly Commissioners. Private deliberations and decision making is intolerable. We must make our voices heard in demanding openness and transparency.
PSARA will engage in an educational campaign and a determined defense of Social Security. Combining our efforts with genuine suggestions on how to improve what is already one of the best government program in our country, we will need the help and support of all of our members.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)