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!

We Cannot Afford Tax Loopholes

As a state we have a long history of standing together during good times and bad. As voters we have overwhelmingly approved measures to invest in the quality of our kids education, provide affordable healthcare for everyone, and to make sure the most vulnerable among us can live a life of dignity free of unnecessary suffering. We have led the nation in innovative public services and programs that protect clean air and clean water, and attract good paying jobs.

In this deep recession, when the need for these critical services is greater than ever, we must not abandon that legacy of investing in the core services upon which we all rely to maintain our quality of life and future prosperity. Yet the draconian all cuts budget the Governor put forth would dismantle that legacy. Here are some examples about what it would mean to cut an additional $4.7 billion from the state budget on top of the $4.3 billion in cuts from the past two years:

• Suspend Initiative 728, which provides money to reduce class sizes

• Suspend Initiative 732, which provides cost-of-living increases for teachers

• Eliminate Basic Health Plan, affordable health insurance for 66,000 low income residents —

• Eliminate Disability Lifeline, which provides critical assistance to the unemployable disabled —

• Reduce in-home personal-care services for people on Medicaid

• Reduce nonemergency dental and maternity care for Medicaid patients

• Double digit increase in tuition to offset a $344.7 million cut at state colleges and universities

• Increase fares by 10 percent and reduce average daily sailings for the Washington State Ferry system

To be fair to the Governor, state law requires her to propose a balanced budget using only existing revenue sources. That said she failed to use the opportunity to urge legislators to take a more balanced approach that includes cutting some of the hundreds of tax exemptions that cost our state $6.5 billion a year.

At a time when we are considering cutting vital services for seniors, our kids and grandkids futures, and public services that protect public health and safety, shouldn’t we also consider cutting tax breaks for big out of state banks and private jet owners? When we are scrutinizing every dollar that we spend on our communities shouldn’t special interest tax giveaways get the same level of scrutiny?

Fortunately a broad based coalition (PSARA is a very active member) of non-profits and faith based organizations is advocating for a better way forward that protects our quality of life, economic competitiveness and the legacy of our great state. During the 2011 legislature we will advocate for the following:

• Cutting unjustified tax giveaways for special interests and the wealthy instead of funding for our kids and communities

• Going after tax evaders and tax cheats that are not contributing their fair share to our great state

• Reforming the tax exemption system to bring transparency and accountability to the hundreds of tax exemptions that cost our state $6.5 billion a year

In order to overcome the intense opposition we expect from special interest lobbyists we need to engage all concerned citizen’s in this fight. When ordinary citizen’s come to the Capitol and lobby their legislators it sends a strong message. On Feb. 24th you have a great opportunity to advocate for the future of our state by joining PSARA at the Senior Lobby Day. Please mark your calendars look for more details in the Feb. Retiree Advocate.

by Jim Dawson, Campaign Director, Our Economic Future Coalition

Opportunity with Retiree Advocate

PSARA is looking for an Associate Editor to assist with writing & editing our newsletter, The Retiree Advocate. The person who serves in this volunteer position will have the opportunity to work closely with our Editor and President Emeritus, Will Parry.

Requirements for Associate Editor of The Retiree Advocate

1. Commitment to PSARA mission.

2. Ability to work cooperatively with and under the direction of PSARA officers and Executive Board.

3. Ability to work as part of a collective – the editor, associate editor and president – that plans and oversees the development of each issue. Approximately 5 – 10 hour per week. (It will vary from week to week.)

4. Readiness to work collegially day-to-day with the editor.

5. Have some writing and editing skills – they overlap but are not identical and willing to learn from Editor.

6. Dependability: Monthly deadlines are inexorable masters.

7. Ability over time to develop ties of mutual respect with elected officers and staff of allied organizations.

Desirable qualities and skills:

Basic computer literacy.
Ability to do basic research on social and economic issues.
Experience working in one or more organizations.
Good background on social justice issues, broadly defined.
Helpful: Skills in photography, layout, note taking and telephone interviewing.

New Officer & New Board Member

At our Winter membership meeting and holiday party, we reelected, by acclamation, Bette Reed, Outreach Vice President; Edie Koch, Treasurer; and returning Board members Frank Irigon, Mary Anderson, Joan Bethel, Rick Erickson, Vivian Lee, and Gene Lux.

Executive Board member, Frieda Takamura, was elected our new Secretary replacing Jim Weston, who stepped down from the Executive Board. Frieda was a public school teacher, and then union staff member with the Washington Education Association where she served as Human/Civil Rights Program Coordinator. She is also an active volunteer with many groups in the Asian Pacific Islander community and serves on state committees working to improve public education for students of color and also on the Safe Schools Coalition.

Bonny Oborn is newly elected to the Executive Board. Bonny worked as a public employee for 34 years, retiring five years ago from DSHS. She continues to participate in the activities of her WFSE local. Since her introduction to PSARA two years ago, she has attended conferences and street rallies for health care, immigration reform, campaign finance reform, and contract disputes.

Make Sense of the World: Join PSARA in 2011

By Dina Burstein


Thanks to all our amazing members, we have achieved our goal of 250 new members in 2010! Our Executive Board has set a goal of 250 new members in 2011. We can do it! But only if every PSARA member makes it happen.

We have lived through triumphs and disappointment in 2010. We saw the voters of Washington state vote to cut state and municipal services that these voters desperately need. Towns in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Alabama and Rhode Island slouch toward bankruptcy, unable to pay for police, firefighters, parks, snowplows…the services that make our communjties work.

How do we make sense of the policies that have resulted in such terrible outcomes? Our daily newspapers, TV, radio, even our friends tell us backwards facts: federal employee salaries too high, state employee pensions too high, Social Security benefits and retirement age unaffordable…How do we keep going in the face of this blast of poisonous “wrong is right” misinformation?

We tell our people to join PSARA! We tell our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, union friends, religious-faith-sharers: Join PSARA! Get a year-long nurturing diet of news, analysis and commentary that actually makes sense of world events! Become part of the fun crowd at PSARA discussions, vigils, demonstrations, potlucks. At $15 a year, give your people a membership gift. Or just talk them into it. Sign them up! Together make sense, not nonsense, of the world.

Medicare Targeted by Cat Food Commission Recommendations

National health care costs in the U.S. amount to some $2.5 trillion a year and are increasing by about 6% per year. (Gross Domestic Product, in contrast, has been increasing recently by an average of 3% per year.) Without significant changes, by 2035 federal health spending is projected to account for almost 40% of total federal spending.

Medicare is participating in this increase, although from 1998 to 2008 per
capita costs for Medicare increased slightly less than those for the privately
insured. Medicare at present has 42 million beneficiaries (of whom 7 million
also have Medicaid coverage— “dual eligibles”). Current federal spending on
Medicare is 13-15% of the federal budget and is expected to increase as a
percentage of the federal budge and the overall economy due to rising health
costs and an aging population.

The National Commission on the Deficit recommended changes to Medicare that were intended to reduce the rising costs. Evaluation of these changes must take into consideration the nature of the Medicare beneficiary population.

Almost half of the Medicare recipients live on low incomes ¬– below $21,000 a year for an individual, and below $28,000 for a couple. In addition, this population, in comparison to the general population, is much more likely to experience chronic illness and other needs for significant long-term care. Because of these factors, Medicare beneficiaries are especially susceptible to adverse financial consequences caused by any reductions in Medicare benefits.

The Deficit Commission Report included the following proposals.

1. Limit growth in Medicare spending, generally targeted at GDP + 1%. The reports are silent on what should be done if the targets are not met. Furthermore, limiting spending on the basis of failure to attain such targets rather than on needs is short-sighted.

2. Strengthen the role of the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

3. Shift in Medicare from its current “defined benefit” program (Medicare specifies the health care that is covered) to a “defined contribution” system (Medicare would give beneficiaries a fixed amount of money with which to purchase health benefits).

4. Restructure Medicare benefits and cost-sharing requirements.

5. Eliminate first-dollar coverage in Medigap policies

6. Increase Medicare premiums

7. Raise the age of eligibility for Medicare beyond age 65

8. Reduce Medicare spending through changes to the Medicare drug program.

Proposals such as changing to a ”defined contribution” program, restructuring Medicare benefits with increased cost-sharing, eliminating first-dollar coverage in Medigap policies, and increasing Medicare premiums will adversely affect the financial security of a high number of Medicare beneficiaries.

A large number of seniors with significant health problems will defer seeking health care because of limited financial resources. Their medical problems not only will not disappear but will likely worsen, ultimately requiring more resources and more money. Ultimately, although Medicare itself may have reduced expenditures, the individuals themselves and society at large will of necessity be forced to pick up the increased burden, and overall health care spending in these situations may actually increase.

In short, addressing only the budget of the Medicare program does not eliminate the health care needs of seniors; it merely shifts those costs, unnecessarily increased, to society at large.

Major changes in Medicare should be contemplated only in the context of consideration of our unsustainable rate of increase in overall health care costs. It is not the Medicare program that is the primary cause of these increases. The principal causes include the increasing number and complexity of medical interventions; a dysfunctional system in which costs are seemingly unrelated to quality of care delivered; a payment system that often rewards doing more with minimal regard to outcomes.

Support for research to determine which treatments are effective and which are not, and pilot projects to change the way care is delivered and paid for, will prove much more valuable in reducing health care costs – both for Medicare and for society at large – than cost-shifting or other measures that increase the financial burden of the individual person.

Our country has a fragmented multi-payer health care system. One-third of our health care dollars are consumed by administration costs rather than by direct patient care. On a per capita basis, the amount that our country spends for health care is twice that spent by virtually all other industrialized countries. Despite this, our health outcomes are worse than most other industrialized countries.

Changing from our current health care system to an expanded and improved Medicare For All program would result in many benefits. Simplifying administration would save about 15% of total health care spending – over $400 billion per year. Placing the entire population into a single risk-pool would permit true global planning and global budgeting. Such a program would be able to negotiate effectively for fair prices for goods and services. All people would be assured of receiving a single standard of care – appropriate, comprehensive, and timely care – without fear of financial insecurity or disaster. Instead of 50+ million uninsured (one-sixth of the population) and half again as many under-insured, all would be adequately covered.

by Donald W. Mitchell, MD,President, Western Washington chapter, Physicians for a National Health Program & a PSARA member

No More “I” Word

Saturday, December 18th, 2010, marked the 10th anniversary of International Migrants Day and the 20th anniversary of the passage of the U.N. Convention to Protect Migrant Workers. This is an important moment to reflect on the fact that today nearly one billion people are on the move across the world, and they are increasingly the target of hatred and violence. That’s why I am celebrating International Migrants Day by signing the pledge to respect immigrants everywhere by dropping the i-word and demanding that the media do the same.

Politicians and media alike use the word “illegal” to describe human beings without immigration status, sometimes shortening “illegal immigrant” to “illegals.” While this may seem trivial to some, the language of criminality plays an enormous part in moving people along the continuum from language to violent behavior. Calling people “illegal,” describing them in ways that make them less them human, recasts them as members of an undeserving sub-class that are owed less respect than what would otherwise be acceptable for “regular” human beings.

We know that, leading up to and during World War II, language was a powerful factor in moving an ideological and genocidal agenda. The language of elimination of an entire race—described as the “final solution”—was used frequently and without apology. In the decades following the Holocaust, this kind of language was widely condemned and deemed unacceptable. And yet, as recently as this year, we have seen genocidal language directed at migrants worldwide.

Consider the recent statement of the deputy mayor of the Italian city of Treviso in relation to the issue of the undocumented Roma migrants: “I want a revolution against gypsies … I want to eliminate all the gypsy children who steal.”

Or consider the United States, where anti-immigrant extremists have painted a picture of all-out warfare that threatens the very idea of nationhood. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan claimed on MSNBC that the influx of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. is “an invasion, the greatest invasion in history … the last scene is the deconstruction of the nations.”

The leap from fear mongering to violence—vigilantism or state-sponsored—is surprisingly short. The imagery of war and warfare helps to up the ante. After all, if this is really war, we must protect “our own.”

Across the world, violence against immigrants is on the rise. The Libyan government, according to a report just released by Amnesty International, has been torturing undocumented African migrants through electric shock and beating, even shooting at fishing boats because they may have held “illegal immigrants.”

In Sweden, shortly after the far right, anti-immigrant party won a place in Parliament for the first time, police arrested a 38-year-old man suspected of carrying out a dozen shootings, nearly all immigrants, where one person died and eight were wounded.

In the United States, the FBI has documented a dramatic increase in reported hate crimes against Latinos, from 595 in 2003 to 888 in 2007. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, armed vigilante groups who claim to be “dedicated to the defense of American patriotism” are on the rise, and the New York Times has consistently reported on the number of deaths that occur in detention centers due to callous disregard for medical needs of immigrant detainees.

One of our challenges in fighting the criminalization of migrants is that the most extreme voices in the dehumanization of immigrants have been legitimized by the media and politicians as representatives of the “other side” of the immigration debate. In spite of numerous reports from the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Media Matters that call out the connections to clear racist and xenophobic ideologies, groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform are routinely called on to give testimony in Congress or provide comments for news stories. Their racism skews the bounds of reasonable discourse about immigrants—and as a result sets extreme new bounds for “reasonable” policy.

As economic insecurity heightens, Americans and Europeans who would otherwise support rational and human polices on migration are drawn into fear. It becomes socially acceptable, and even personally necessary, to scapegoat or become violent towards someone else—namely, immigrants.

In this polarized environment, some policy makers have fueled the frenzy by embracing restrictionist policies that further criminalize immigrants. The success in exploiting fear in an increasingly fragile economic environment has led to fringe political parties across the world coming into power for the first time.

The Guardian has documented the rise of these fringe parties in Europe to “such a degree that they are now in the position of propping up governments.” Parties that espouse anti-Muslim views have gained ground, and state-sponsored policies that ban core practices of Islam (such as burkhas in France or minarets in Switzerland) are increasingly common. In the U.S., politicians who hold extreme anti-immigrant views are now in positions of power in the House of Representatives and are expected to introduce unprecedented regressive legislation, including an attempt to amend the Constitution’s birthright-citizenship clause.

Some are also pushing back, recognizing the real danger we face of escalating violence and polarization. In early 2010, Pope Benedict XVI, reacting to the riots in Southern Italy in which African immigrants were attacked, reminded people that, “An immigrant is a human being, different in background, culture and tradition, but a person to be respected, and possessing rights and duties. …Violence must never be a way to resolve differences.”

We need to take the hate out of the debate. It’s time to stop using racist, fear-mongering language that promotes and even condones violence. We need space for a rational, thoughtful and humane discussion around migration and immigration policies that support the economic and moral need for managed flows of people. Join me by taking a simple but significant stand for humanity. Take the pledge and Drop the I-Word. For more information, go to http://colorlines.com/droptheiword/

Pramila Jayapal is Executive Director of One America & a PSARA member