OWL-CALIFORNIA
Education and Advocacy for
Midlife and Older Women

National OWL
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 701, Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: 877/OLDRWMN (653-7966)
Fax: 202/332-2949
E-mail: owlinfo@owl-national.org
www.owl-national.org

OWL-CA
(916) 444-2526
Joyce Kamian, Ohlone
Mary Lembke, Ohlone
owlca@owlca.org

Sacramento Capitol Chapter
(916) 444-2526
owlsac@owlca.org
Roberta Battle

Ohlone/East Bay OWL
POB 9536
Berkeley CA 94709
eastbayOWL@gmail.com
Eleanor Luce

Placer County OWL

San Francisco OWL Kathie Piccagli

Santa Clara OWL
BJ Bryan
owlsantaclara@gmail.com

At-large, Inland Empire Area/ Riverside/San Bernardino Area
Shirley Harlan
vldy@aol.com

Contents

• June 2011... the AARP WSJ and other fallout Word doc PDF Doc
• The latest Simpson Attack
• The Obama Tax Deal: How could it affect Social Security?

• Social Security News! Nov. 30: OWLs help crash the Capital Switchboard; Commission changes dates and procedures. Is this nightmare over?
• The Dec. 7 tax "Deal" with payroll tax holiday
• Nov. 30, Commission Day of reckoning for the Commission
• Write to complain: contact info
• Nov. 10: ccommission releases unexpected report
• OWL-CA fights for Social Security
• America Speaks
• What can you do?
• Resources
• Alan Simpson attacks OWL... and we fight back!

The Challenges to Social Security and Medicare
June 16, 2011
Social Security:
• Great book, the Battle for Social Security, Nancy J. Altman 2005. There have been people trying to destroy Social Security since it was first enacted.
Before Social Security, according to the book,” every state but New Mexico had poorhouses (sometimes called almshouses or poor farms.)

• Life was like before Social Security:
• People seldom received any pensions; many lost savings in Crash/depression
• Families took parents in if possible
• Others went to “poorhouses” almshouses, poor farms. Most of the “inmates” entered the poorhouse late in life, after working all their lives. One study found that only 1 percent of the residents had entered the almshouse before the age of 40; 92 percent entered after age 60….
• Awful conditions in every state. No privacy, even in the most intimate affairs of life, married couples separated, and all the inmates are regimented as though in a prison
• No private possessions, other than the clothes on the back, no individual bureaus, closets, tables or other articles of furniture, outside of a bed.
• After Social Security, much better. Seniors had savings, pensions and Social Security. Also many had paid off homes.
• Most of that is going backwards. Only 10% now in unions and public pensions under attack
• Retirement ages being forced upwards; benefits going down.
• Healthcare issues: seniors forced into poverty while trying to pay for their health care. Since 1965, when Medicare and Medicaid were created, poverty among seniors has dropped by two-thirds. (But it’s going up again.These programs grew out of the belief that the best way we can honor our parents is by making sure they are taken care of as they get older.

Ryan plan, AARP (??) Lieberman plan (Medicare), Biden talks (payroll tax cut “holiday,” debt limit talks), Sessions (privatize SS), Santorum (both ss and Medicare; Herbert Cain (“personalize SS)
What can we do? Change vocab. (entitlements), get younger people to fight, remind that “we’re all in this together”, work with other groups, lobby AARP

Links
Social Security: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/about.htm?p
Social Security online: http://www.ssa.gov/onlineservices/
Social Security Matters (OWL and partners) : http://www.socialsecuritymatters.org/Home.html
Strengthen Social Security/Social Security Works: http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-works-0
National Committee: http://www.ncpssm.org
Dem. Caucus on Seniors http://www.dems.gov/seniors
Co-Chairs
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Doris Matsui
Members
Rep. Joe Baca
Rep. Kathy Castor
Rep. Donna Christensen
Rep. Joe Courtney
Rep. Mark Critz
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Rep. Ted Deutch
Rep. Lloyd Doggett
Rep. Bob Filner
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa
Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Rep. Mazie Hirono
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
Rep. Hank Johnson
Rep. Marcy Kaptur
Rep. Larry Kissell
Rep. Dave Loebsack
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep. Michael Michaud
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. Bill Pascrell
Rep. Charles Rangel
Rep. Laura Richardson
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard
Rep. Linda Sanchez
Rep. Jackie Speier
Rep. Betty Sutton
Rep. Paul Tonko

From Margie: I know AARP is assuring us it is fighting to preserve Social Security. But they are not addressing whether they are on board to insist on no cuts to benefits. For those of us already receiving Social Security, we will not be hurt by most of the changes proposed, even those proposed by Republicans. It is those currently under 65 who are at risk... and we continue to remain vigilant. With the erosion of pension plans in both the private and public sector, the crash in home values, and the difficulties in finding paid jobs, Social Security is more of a lifeline than ever before. And keep in mind that every plan which would destroy Social Security... Ryan, Bowles-Simpson, Lieberman Cain, even Rick Santorum, all insist that they are only trying to "save" Social Security and Medicare.

We still remember how much AARP cost us in the Medicare Part D fight! Doughnut Hole anyone?

We need more assurances from AARP. And we need the under 65's to join us in this fight.

Leading Seniors Groups Call on AARP to Oppose Cuts to Social Security

(Washington, DC) — Leaders from some of the nation’s most powerful groups representing seniors, including the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, the Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA), the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) and the Older Women’s League (OWL), today strongly criticized AARP for being willing to support cuts to Social Security benefits, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Strengthen Social Security Campaign Directors Nancy Altman and Eric Kingson, NCPSSM Acting CEO Max Richtman, ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle and OWL Executive Director Bobbie Brinegar made the following statements, which are excepted below and available to listen to here:

Eric Kingson, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign: “Given the economic challenges facing today’s older people, we should focus on how inadequate the nation’s retirement income system is to deal with the very serious risks confronting them. Instead of seeming to position itself as a reasonable inside deal maker that is open to benefit cuts, AARP should be educating about the need to selectively improve Social Security – the one economic security institution that works quite well.

Max Richtman, Acting CEO of NCPSSM: “While AARP is among the nation’s largest lobbyists, it clearly does not speak for all of America’s seniors. Seniors of all political persuasions, and even voters across all age groups, do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Offering up Social Security benefit cuts to gain access to closed- door discussions, where Let’s Make a Deal politics has become the norm, is not the way to address strengthening a program that touches the lives of virtually every American family.

ARA Executive Director Ed Coyle: “Our members hope that AARP will directly answer some basic questions. Do you support any cuts in benefits? Do you support raising the retirement age? Do you support means testing? These are questions that any senior’s organization ought to be prepared to answer directly.”

Bobbie Brinegar, Executive Director of OWL: “The Voice of Midlife and Older Women sincerely hopes that the Wall Street Journal’s depiction of what AARP is undertaking regarding Social Security was off base. Surely AARP would not want to disrespect their members’ wishes.”

Nancy Altman, Co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign:“Americans are overwhelmingly united in their position on Social Security…Politicians who think they can take cover through leading groups in Washington do so at their peril.”

###

The Strengthen Social Security Campaign is comprised of more than 300 national and state organizations representing more than 50 million Americans from many of the nation’s leading aging, labor, disability, women’s, children, consumer, civil rights and equality organizations.
"Entitled to Know" http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1795Let’s Make a Deal – AARP Style
Today’s Wall Street Journal coverage of AARP’s support of Social Security benefit cuts certainly got everyone’s attention. While AARP spent most of the morning trying to “clarify” its position, with tweets every minute for most of the morning, and eventually a follow-up statement from its CEO, it’s clear AARP has once again chosen to offer up vital safety net programs to the altar of insider Washington politics.
In short, AARP says Social Security should not be a part of the budget conversation. So we ask…Why suggest benefit cuts now…during one of the most intense budget debates of our lifetime? They say they’ll also hold town hall meetings to “educate” Americans about AARP’s vision for Social Security. Again, if benefit cuts should not be a part of the budget debate (and they shouldn’t) then why is AARP working so hard to try and sell these benefit cuts to an unsupportive membership now?
AARP’s John Rother says:
“I’m sure there will be some who will not be happy, but others will be eager to see the program put on a stronger footing financial for the long-term.”
But benefit cuts are not the only way to put Social Security on stronger footing. Perhaps, most disconcerting is how closely AARP’s language mirrors the anti-Social Security approach promoted by the Cato institute after the last reforms in 1983 and perpetuated by President Bush in his campaign for private accounts. That strategy says policymakers should ensure current seniors know the cuts won’t affect them to garner their support:
“It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.” AARP CEO, Barry Rand
Advocates representing millions of American seniors nationwide, including the National Committee, joined together this morning in a news conference call to remind reporters that AARP does not represent the views of most Americans.
Here is Max Richtman, NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO’s full statement:
“While AARP is among the nation’s largest lobbyists…it clearly does not speak for all of America’s seniors. Seniors of all political persuasions, and even voters across all age groups, do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Poll after poll, (including AARP’s own polling) show that seniors know Social Security didn’t cause this fiscal crisis, shouldn’t be included in the current budget debate and that there are other ways to resolve our economic woes without cutting benefits to millions of Americans. Suggesting now, given the current anti-Social Security environment in Washington, that seniors’ benefits should be cut is not a view shared by any other major seniors’ organization because it’s just not good policy. We don’t need to be squishy on this issue or equivocate, flip-flop or try to have it all ways…let me say clearly…we at the National Committee do not support cutting Social Security benefits.
Timing is everything in politics and no one in Washington now is really talking about providing long-term solvency issues for Social Security…they’re looking at ways to avoid paying back what’s owed to the trust fund and ways to cut spending. Addressing Social Security as part of a budget deal has absolutely nothing to do with long-term solvency.
The National Committee has always said we need to find long-term solvency solutions to preserve Social Security for future generations…and those solutions aren’t really a surprise to anyone. The need to make adjustments before the year 2036 isn’t news or position unique to AARP. We all know, modest and manageable changes will bring Social Security where it needs to be for 75 more years; however, THAT is not what is being debated now. Not a single seniors’ group, contrary to claims by Washington’s fiscal hawks, have ever argued that we should do “nothing” or “ignore” the fiscal facts; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current budget debate engulfing Washington.
Offering up Social Security benefit cuts, to gain access to closed door discussions, where Let’s Make a Deal politics has become the norm is not the way to address strengthening a program which touches the lives of virtually every American family.
AARP clearly hopes to continue to position itself as the representative of Americans seniors in Washington. They say they want to captain the ship in this Social Security debate. The problem is their policy ship is the Titanic and America’s seniors shouldn’t be forced to go down with it…with AARP at the wheel.
The National Committee takes our position as a membership organization very seriously…we will always advocate for positions that best serve the programs we fight to preserve and strengthen because they are literally lifelines for millions of Americans. The debate about preserving Social Security over the long-term has absolutely nothing to do with the budget debate…period. “
More Recent Articles
• Why Killing Medicare to “Save” it Doesn't Make Any Sense http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1789
• Trading Social Security for Business Tax Cuts – Is This Really What Passes for Fiscal Responsibility These Days? http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1784
• Here We Go Again- GOP Offers Social Security Privatization Legislation http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1780
• National Radio Medicare/Social Security Radio Ad Campaign Launched this Week http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1773
• Senator Corker Says Medicare and Social Security are “Generational Theft” http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1766

Ami Bera's Medicare Town Hall
• June 20th 7:00pm to 8:00pm
• Conzelmann Community Center at Howe Park, 2201 Cottage Way in Sacramento
The proposed Paul Ryan budget virtually eliminates Medicare while creating a voucher system that will leave millions in poverty. No one on the national stage has the experience and firsthand knowledge of the medical industry quite like Dr. Bera. As the former Chief Medical Officer of Sacramento County, and a physician leader for twenty years, he knows how best to help people.
Join Dr. Bera, Max Richtman, acting CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and Dr. Carroll Estes, Board Chair of NCPSSM, to discuss how to make Medicare safe for future generations while lowering costs and addressing the federal debt.

Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2011
Key Seniors Association Pivots on Benefit Cut By LAURA MECKLER
WASHINGTON—AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington's debate over how to revamp the nation's entitlement programs.
The decision, which AARP hasn't discussed publicly, came after a wrenching debate inside the organization. In 2005, the last time Social Security was debated, AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush's plan for partial privatization. AARP now has concluded that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain.
Read more here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304186404576389760955403414.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

As you know this is a harmful development for all of us working so hard for a strong Social Security program. There are numerous options for scrapping the payroll tax cap some of which would fully fund Social Security without making benefit cuts. We will be back in touch soon about next steps.
Frank Clemente
Campaign Manager
Social Security Works & Strengthen Social Security Campaign
(o) 202-587-1632
(m) 202-441-9818
frank.clemente@gmail.com
fclemente@socialsecurity-works.org
http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/
Facebook: Strengthen Social Security
Twitter: @NoSocSecCuts

TPMDC
AARP: Our Social Security Position Hasn’t Changed — We’ve Always Allowed For Benefit Cuts
Brian Beutler | June 17, 2011, 1:11PM
AARP, Social Security
In a partial walk-back of a story in Friday's Wall Street Journal, AARP says their position on Social Security hasn't changed -- and suggests that it has always been compatible with benefit cuts.
"Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security," reads a statement from the group's CEO A. Barry Rand. "It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries."
In other words, benefit cuts of some kind could meet muster with AARP if they weren't too severe. We'll have a more thorough report about this controversy momentarily. Rand's full statement is below:
“Let me be clear - AARP is as committed as we've ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today's seniors and strengthening it for future generations. Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.
"First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation's deficit. Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.
"Our focus has always been on the human impact of changes, not just the budget tables. Which is why, as we have done numerous times over the last several decades, AARP is engaging our volunteer Board to evaluate any proposed changes to Social Security to determine how each might - individually or in different combinations - impact the lives of current and future retirees given the constantly changing economic realities they face.
"Second, we have maintained for years - to our members, the media and elected officials - that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program's long-term challenges in a way that's fair for all generations.
"It has long been AARP's policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years. It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.
"AARP strongly opposed a privatization plan in 2005, and continues to oppose this approach, because it would eliminate the guarantee that Social Security provides and reduce benefits, and we are currently fighting proposals to cut Social Security to pay the nation's bills.
"Social Security is a critically important issue for our members, their families and Americans of all ages, especially at a time when many will have less retirement security than previous generations with fewer pensions, less savings and rising health care costs. And, as we have been for decades, we will continue to protect this bedrock of lifetime financial security for all generations of Americans."
***************************************************************************************
Viewpoints: Strengthen Medicare in a responsible way
Special to The Bee
Kathleen Sibelius and Doris Matsui
PUBLISHED TUESDAY, MAY. 17, 2011
Today, nearly 48 million people – our parents, grandparents, neighbors and friends – rely on Medicare for the medical treatments and prescription drugs they need to get healthy and stay healthy. For nearly half a century, the program has freed a generation of Americans from the fear that sickness or injury would cost them their life savings. In doing so, Medicare has made America a stronger, more prosperous nation.
But that doesn't mean Medicare can't be improved. There are critical gaps in coverage, especially for prescription drugs. And Medicare continues to face rising costs.
In the last year, we've seen two very different proposals for how to address these challenges. And it's clear that there is a right way to reform Medicare and a wrong way.
The first plan was put forward in the health care law passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama a little more than a year ago. It begins by making some immediate improvements to Medicare benefits.
For example, we know that as many as one in four Medicare beneficiaries may have gone without their medications at some point because of sudden out-of-pocket costs created by the coverage gap commonly called the doughnut hole. That's just not right.
So beginning this year, people with Medicare in the doughnut hole are getting a 50 percent discount on covered brand-name drugs as a result of the health care law. In just its first two months, this program saved the average person in the doughnut hole nearly $800. And by 2020, the doughnut hole will be closed completely.
We also know that too many seniors go without critical preventive care such as cancer screenings because they can't afford these services. Thanks to health care reform, seniors no longer have to pay any co-pays and deductibles for key preventive screenings such as mammograms. And they'll also be able to get a free annual wellness visit.
At the same time, the health care law is putting Medicare's finances on a more sustainable path to preserve Medicare for this generation and generations to come.
We are giving law enforcement unprecedented new tools and resources to fight fraud and abuse, already saving the program more than $4 billion in 2010. And we are gradually reforming the way we pay for care so that we reward the highest quality care. A recent report from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services found that the administration's actions will save $120 billion for Medicare over the next five years.
This is one plan for Medicare's future: improving benefits and slowing growth in costs by reducing waste and promoting more effective patient care.
But we've recently seen a very different plan proposed and passed by House Republicans. Instead of strengthening the Medicare program, House Republicans voted to end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program. Then, in order to bring costs down, the amount of care paid for by vouchers would be capped and would grow more slowly than the cost of care.
This is simply shifting the cost of care from Medicare to seniors themselves. In fact, the independent Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in order to get the same health benefits that seniors rely on today, the average person with Medicare would pay $6,400 more a year for their care once the new plan begins. Shockingly, the Republican proposal would, in a little over 10 years, leave seniors paying more than double their own health costs, from $6,150 to $12,500, on average.
Even worse, this plan would do nothing to close the worst gaps in coverage or address what's really driving up Medicare costs, which is the growth in the underlying cost of health care.
Now is not the time to turn Medicare into a private insurance company voucher program. Instead, we should continue with our plan to strengthen the Medicare that seniors depend on with better benefits and better, more effective care.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Kathleen Sebelius is secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Doris Matsui is California's 5th Congressional District representative, who serves as the co-chair of the congressional task force on seniors.
June 16, 2011 Volume 2, Issue 23
MedPAC Report Examines Controversial Cost-Containment Proposals
This week, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC)released its June 2011 report to Congress, which addresses potential changes to the Medicare program and health care delivery system. The report focuses on changes in provider payments and benefit structures that MedPAC believes would reduce the growth of Medicare spending. MedPAC investigated different ways to change the current incentives in the Medicare program to encourage both providers and patients to use high-value services. The current fee-for-service (FFS) structure of the program has come under fire because many believe that paying providers per service encourages over-utilization. MedPAC recommends changing payments to providers to promote primary care, early intervention and care coordination, which would help achieve savings by preventing the need for more expensive acute care, such as hospitalizations, over time.
Some of the proposals discussed in the report are controversial because advocates and providers believe they may result in increased costs and decreased access to care for people with Medicare. One such proposal is the restructuring of the Medicare benefit coupled with a reduction in coverage provided by Medigap plans, which cover cost-sharing that is not covered by Original Medicare. One incarnation of this proposal, which was also included in recommendations from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, would create a combined deductible and a universal coinsurance for Part A and Part B services, as well as an out-of-pocket limit. In addition, the proposal would create a Medigap deductible of sorts, with Medigap coverage not beginning until beneficiaries spent a certain amount out of pocket, and would reduce the percentage of out-of-pocket costs Medigap plans could pay once coverage began.
Unfortunately, these proposals would likely increase out-of-pocket costs for most people with Medicare, who on average already spend 15 percent of their household incomes on health costs, and half of whom have incomes below $22,000 per year. Also, due the high out-of-pocket limit included in these types of proposals, most people with Medicare would never benefit from such protections. For example, an option proposed by the Fiscal Commission and discussed in the MedPAC report sets an annual out-of-pocket limit of $7,500. On average, people with Medicare pay about $5,000 out of pocket per year.
Read MedPAC’s June 2011 report to Congress.
Read Medicare Rights Center President Joe Baker’s statement on proposals that would shift costs to people with Medicare.
*************************************************************************
Medicare Reminder
If you have a Medicare Advantage plan (also known as a Medicare private health plan), your plan may not cover your care while you travel in the United States. What kind of Medicare Advantage plan you have, how long you travel for, where you travel, and the kind of care you need will affect whether your plan will cover your care while traveling.
If you travel outside of your Medicare Advantage plan’s service area continuously for more than six months, you will be automatically disenrolled from most plans. If you are traveling in the United States for six months or less, how your plan will cover your care depends on the kind of care you need and what type of plan you have.
Regardless of what type of plan you have, if you need emergency or urgent care, your plan must cover it. Your charges for emergency room services that are out-of-network will be no more than $50 or whatever you would have paid for emergency services in-network.
Learn more about traveling with a Medicare private health plan at www.medicareinteractive.org.
**************************************************************************
Medicare options in Biden budget talks get boost
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – Wed Jun 15, 2:53 pm ET
WASHINGTON – As Vice President Joe Biden and congressional negotiators hunt for budget cuts, major Medicare changes that could squeeze billions in savings got a boost Wednesday from a nonpartisan panel of experts that advises lawmakers.
Those changes are already under consideration in the budget talks, officials say.
One idea would revamp Medicare's outdated copayments and deductibles to provide better protection against catastrophic expenses, but it could lead to seniors paying a bigger share of the cost for some everyday services. The goal is to save taxpayers money by discouraging overtreatment.
The impact on individual seniors is less clear. Few details are available, but such changes could create winners and losers.
Seniors with high medical costs would gain from having a limit on their financial exposure, protection that Medicare doesn't now provide. Those who see the doctor often for more manageable problems could end up paying more. Overall, premiums for private insurance that many seniors get to fill in Medicare's gaps could become more affordable.
The other idea under consideration would shift nearly 9 million high-cost beneficiaries with both Medicare and Medicaid into managed-care insurance plans, to better coordinate services and cut duplication.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission did not endorse any specific approach, but its traditional midyear report to Congress made clear that both issues are overdue for a fix.
"The status quo ... has led to care that is often not coordinated, sometimes inappropriate, and occasionally risky to patients," said the report, referring to Medicare's traditional fee-for-service benefit. "It has also left beneficiaries with rising ... premiums and out-of-pocket costs and has left taxpayers with the unsustainable burden of financing the program."
The aim should be "to give beneficiaries better protection against high (out-of-pocket) spending and to promote incentives for them to weigh their use of discretionary care, without discouraging needed care," said the report from MedPAC, as the commission is known.
Officials familiar with the negotiations between Biden and leading lawmakers of both parties said the two Medicare options are under consideration. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget talks are confidential.
Biden's goal is to find savings that will help the administration reach a deal with congressional Republicans to increase the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. That's needed to prevent the government from lurching into an unprecedented default on its interest payments to creditors, which could destabilize the already wobbly economy.
Prospects for the talks are uncertain, since both political parties are locked into their positions. House Republicans are on record that they will not vote to approve a debt increase without deep spending cuts. Democrats, meanwhile, are taking a hard line against any reduction in Medicare benefits, including increased copayments for visits to doctors and hospitals.
A sweeping overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid backed by House Republicans seems to have no chance. Instead, the budget negotiators are looking at a list of proposals outlined last year by President Barack Obama's deficit reduction panel. Most involve cuts in payments to medical service providers and drug companies, but some would affect seniors directly.
The deficit panel estimated that revamping Medicare's cost-sharing rules would save $110 billion from 2012 to 2020. Additional savings would come from limiting the ability of private insurers to fully shield seniors from Medicare's out-of-pocket costs. Many seniors purchase private "Medigap" coverage that caps their total annual costs and allows them to escape a bewildering assortment of Medicare deductibles and copayments.
For example, Medicare's hospital deductible is $1,132 for the first 60 days, while the annual deductible for doctor visits is $162. There is no copayment for the first 20 days in a nursing home, but beneficiaries must pay full cost after 100 days.
Obama's deficit panel recommended a single annual deductible of $550 for hospital care and medical services, with a 20-percent copayment on health spending above the deductible. The copayment would drop to 5 percent for costs over $5,500. Beneficiaries would pay no more than $7,500 a year total out-of-pocket, a consumer safeguard now missing from Medicare.
But there would be a trade-off.
Under the panel's proposal, Medigap insurance plans would be prohibited from covering the first $500 in cost sharing, and could only cover half of the next $5,000. Except for low-income seniors and some with employer-provided retiree coverage, beneficiaries would be responsible for at least $500 of their medical expenses, and as much as $7,500.
The second proposal, shifting high-cost beneficiaries into Medicaid managed care plans, would save $12 billion from 2012 to 2020. This group includes many low-income people, patients in nursing homes, and individuals with multiple complicated health problems. They receive coverage both through Medicare and Medicaid at a cost well above that for typical beneficiaries in either program.
Wednesday's MedPAC report cautioned that both of the changes would take time to carry out, and will require close attention to prevent unintended consequences for seniors and disabled beneficiaries.
Online: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission - http://www.medpac.gov
*****************************************************************************************************
Medicare Benefit Cuts, Tax Hikes Taken Off Table in Dwindling Debt Limit Talks
By: David Dayen Tuesday June 14, 2011 3:57 pm
Both sides played one of their cards in the battle over the debt limit and a deal on the nation’s budget deficit today. First, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal that there will be no tax increases in any deal that results in an increase in the debt limit. He also spelled out what the deal would look like in his perfect world, and even managed to offer some political advice to the President.
“I can say pretty confidently, as the speaker has, that we are not going to raise taxes in this agreement,” McConnell told National Journal during a lengthy interview in his Capitol office. “And what the president ought to say to his own political left is, ‘Those crazy Republicans won’t let me raise taxes, but we need to do this for the country.’ That would be my advice to him. I’m not his political adviser.” [...]
McConnell told NJ for the first time what the deal needs to look like. He said that there’s not enough time to consider comprehensive tax reform and that he wanted spending caps for eight years of any 10-year deal to resemble those created in the mid-1980s by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation.
“We would have to do something significant. A top-line for at least ’12 and ’13 on our annual discretionary spending that continues to send spending downward,” McConnell said. “Caps beyond that; it’s better to have them than not. Out-year caps are worth having, even though we all know some people view those as a promise to something someday maybe. But the next two years would be clearly real and enforceable.” [...]
“Out of this debt-limit discussion we need entitlement changes. I’m not going to get into what kind,” he said. “But we need entitlement changes that bend the trajectory significantly downward. I’m not going to negotiate the details of that with you, but this whole package would have to be viewed by Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s and foreign countries and the American people.” He said that the changes need to be dramatic enough to convince everyone that Washington is serious about the problem, “that adults are in charge in Washington and we’re going to get our house in order. We’re talking here about trillions, not billions.”
The demands on entitlements are actually less stringent than McConnell’s prior remarks, which demanded cuts to Medicare. Senate Democrats slammed the door shut on that today, sort of, by saying that benefit cuts would not be allowed. Other cuts, along the lines that Democrats have already described, such as the kind of cuts to corporate welfare in the Affordable Care Act, or allowing Medicare to negotiate for prescription drugs, or moving dual eligibles to Medicaid, could be part of a deal. But benefit cuts are straight out.
“Three weeks ago Leader McConnell proclaimed he would not support a debt ceiling agreement unless it included cuts to Medicare, but he refused to specify what types of cuts he had in mind beyond the House-passed plan that would end the very program as we know it,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “So Senator McConnell is saying if he can’t get the full Ryan plan, he at least wants a plan that makes major cuts to seniors’ benefits. Basically he’s saying if he can not dismantle Medicare all at once, he wants to do it in pieces.”
Schumer, joined by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) and DSCC chair Patty Murray (WA) said Democrats could support more Medicare savings along the lines of those in President Obama’s health care law — cuts which Republicans attacked to great political advantage during the 2010 midterm campaign. But no benefit cuts.
So there you have it. One side says no tax increases whatsoever; the other side says no benefit cuts to Medicare. The deal will have to come from appropriations, or possibly Medicaid, although 41 Democrats have vowed not to vote for any crippling of that program.
If these debt limit negotiations are political theater, and I actually think they are, everyone’s doing a good job of acting.
UPDATE: Of course, there’s also this:
Yes, it will be raised, Donohue answered, mainly because the country can not afford to not pay its bills. To those newly-elected representatives who say they aren’t going to raise the debt ceiling and will shut down government, Donohue said the U.S. Chamber has its own message: “We’ll get rid of you.”
He then went on to praise U.S. House Speaker John Boehner for his Congressional leadership.
“He’s growing into his shorts,” Donohue said. “He’s put on his big boy pants.”
One cannot know how serious Donohue is being about this. And I’m not sure there’s a group of pro-debt limit Republicans the Chamber can just take off the shelf to beat the more intransigent members. But it’s worth noting.
Read Kaiser Family Foundation’s data spotlight “Health Care on a Budget: The Financial Burden of Health Spending by Medicare Households.”
Read Kaiser Family Foundation’s data spotlight “How Much ‘Skin in the Game’ is Enough? The Financial Burden of Health Spending for People on Medicare.”
Read Kaiser Family Foundation’s data spotlight “Projecting Income and Assets: What Might the Future Hold for the Next Generation of Medicare Beneficiaries?”
*****************************************************
Momentum Grows for Payroll Tax Cut
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/06/15/momentum-grows-for-payroll-tax-cut
Cutting the payroll tax to boost jobs could find traction with both the left and right
By ALEX M. PARKER
Posted: June 15, 2011
With fears of a double-dip recession growing after a series of disturbing economic reports and a second round of stimulus spending out of the question, talk in Washington has turned to a familiar subject—the tax cut—as a way to protect the poorest Americans and create jobs. The stalemate over a national debt ceiling, however, means many hurdles must be cleared before that little extra showed up in your paycheck. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]
In theory, a payroll tax cut could please both antitax Republicans and Democrats worried that the lower and middle classes are being squeezed by the recession. But the idea may have a rocky road in Congress, especially if lawmakers are looking to use it as part of a compromise to raise the debt ceiling. Further cutting the payroll tax—which funds Social Security—would raise questions among budget hawks worried about the cost to the deficit. But it also will find opposition among some liberals worried about the future of Social Security. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who last year strongly opposed a compromise measure that included a 2 percentage point payroll tax cut, said he's still against tinkering with Social Security's revenue stream. "This is a bad idea," Sanders said in a statement released by his office. "I understand the need in the midst of a recession to put money in the pockets of working people, but this is not the way to do it. We shouldn't be diverting resources from Social Security."
So far, the proposal is only in the whispering stage. The White House has said it's looking at whether the payroll tax cut included in last year's deal with Republicans, which lowered the rate to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent, should be extended past 2011. In an op-ed piece for the Washington Post, former White House economic adviser Larry Summers advocated temporarily lowering the rate to 3.2 percent and adding a similar cut to the portion of the payroll tax paid by businesses. Currently, businesses pay the full 6.2 percent rate. According to some reports, the tax cut is being discussed in bipartisan negotiations over the debtceiling, which the parties are hoping will wrap up with a compromise deal soon. But the complexity of adding billions of dollars in tax cuts to legislation meant to cut the deficit could be a significant roadblock. One congressional source guessed that the proposal had about a 50 percent chance of getting through. [Read about how odds are just 1 to 3 on deal to raise debt ceiling.]
The idea is not opposed by all liberals. On ABC's This Week, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich advocated temporarily exempting the payroll tax for everyone's salary up to $20,000. Supporters say it could provide relief to those most affected by the recession while also helping to spur the economy with more spending. "The hike in gas prices has really offset the employee [tax cut] that's in place right now, so it would be good to expand that to provide a spending boost," says Chuck Marr, a former congressional economic staffer and current official at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "A payroll tax cut has something that could get support from both parties and could get business community support. From a practical perspective, I think it's one that should be strongly considered."
It would not necessarily need to hurt Social Security's viability, according to Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress. The cost of the cut could be shifted around, so it is added to the $14.3 trillion national debt, not the Social Security Trust Fund. But as a political reality, temporary tax cuts have a way of becoming permanent, as neither party wants to preside over a tax increase. That reality becomes even starker during a recession.
********************************************************
TPMDC
House Republicans Look To Privatize Social Security
Benjy Sarlin | June 7, 2011, 9:26AM
Republican leaders left Social Security untouched in their House budget this year, but a group of GOP lawmakers are looking to fill the gap themselves with legislation that would create a voluntary privatized version of the program.
Introduced by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), who also chairs the House's campaign efforts at the NRCC, the "Savings Account For Every American Act" would allow people to immediately opt out of Social Security in favor of a private "S.A.F.E." account. Eventually the program would expand to let employers send their matching contribution to workers' Social Security to a "S.A.F.E." account as well.
"Our nation's Social Security Trust Fund is depleting at an alarming rate, and failure to implement immediate reforms endangers the ability of Americans to plan for their retirement with the options and certainty they deserve," Sessions said of the plan, according to The Hill. "To simply maintain the status quo would weaken American competitiveness by adding more unsustainable debt and insolvent entitlements to our economy when we can least afford it."
Republicans have been wary of wading back into Social Security privatization after a major push on the issue during President Bush's second term failed to reach a vote in either the House or Senate despite there being a Republican Congress. One Freshman Representative who suggested the federal government could be rolled back to just four departments even listed protecting Social Security from privatization as one of his top causes on the 2010 trail. Among the GOP presidential candidates, Rick Santorum had tried to adopt the cause as part of his platform.
•
• JUNE 6, 2011, 12:25 PM ET
Santorum would revamp Social Security, Medicare
Rick Santorum opened his presidential campaign on Monday by saying he’d make changes to Medicare and Social Security, jumping into a fierce fiscal debate as he seeks to build momentum for his White House bid.
Santorum, a former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, announced his candidacy on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and said he’s “in it to win.” Santorum is a favorite among Republican social conservatives for his anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances but made clear on Monday that he wants to be a leader in entitlement reform as well.
Santorum said voters want someone who stands for what he believes in, and harked back to Social Security reforms he pushed when he was a senator. Santorum said that not even Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, “had the temerity to step forward and say we have to do Social Security” in his controversial budget plan. Santorum also praised Ryan’s plan to essentially privatize Medicare and said he’d make it apply to seniors earlier than Ryan would.
Santorum is far behind in most polls, trailing the likes of Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty. Santorum lost re-election to the Senate five years ago to Democrat Robert Casey, 59%-41%.
Santorum joins a crowded Republican field that includes Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Pawlenty, Ron Paul and Romney. Former Ambassador to China Jon Hunstman, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are also potential contenders for the Republican nomination.
Santorum has a hard climb ahead of him, if a recent Gallup poll is an indication. Just 2% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents preferred the former senator to other contenders.
– Robert Schroeder

GOP candidate Cain favors Social Security “personalization”
http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/06/06/gop-candidate-cain-favors-social-security-personalization/
by O. KAY HENDERSON on JUNE 6, 2011
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says it’s time to “wean” Americans off so-called “entitlement” spending and he favors changes in Social Security similar to those President Bush proposed, but was unable to push through congress.
“Please don’t call it privatization. It is not privatization. It is personalization. It’s an account with the individual’s name on it,” Cain said today in Sioux Center. “It’s a personal retirement account option and you make that option available to people below a certain age. Over time, we wouuld wean ourself off a system that is clearly broken.”
Cain, the former C.E.O. of Godfather’s Pizza, argued ever-expanding programs first designed to provide a “safety net” for the poor may soon compromise the financial stability of the federal government. Cain pointed to Chile as an example of how Social Security might be reformed.
“In Chile, after three years 90 percent of the workers chose the personal retirement account option, while they still had to contribute to the old system for those people who could not afford to get off the old system,” Cain said in Sioux Center. “We must restructure that program.”
Cain also expressed support for changing Medicare to a voucher system, an idea proposed by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the U.S. House Budget Committee.
“We must restructure Medicare, ala Representative Paul Ryan’s approach. We must restructure Medicaid, ala block grants — empower the states to decide how best to manage those funds rather than try to micromanage the rules out of Washington, D.C.,” Cain said. “So all of the programs must be restructured in order to help people help themselves and not try and provide micro-managed solutions out of Washington, D.C.”
Cain’s morning appearance in Sioux Center was part of the presidential lecture series hosted by The Family Leader. Cain told the audience the American family is under attack, both morally and economically. “But the only way we’re going to fix that is to focus on the family and focus on fixing these things that are causing families to break up and stay apart,” Cain said.
Cain is also scheduled to give lectures this afternoon in Pella and Iowa City.
*********************************************************************(From Doris Matui’s Office)
Hello Friends,
I wanted to share with you some news regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The Congresswoman has been fighting to ensure that any proposals do not water down its authority. Unfortunately, there appears to be a very coordinated effort by Senate Republicans to hold up any CFPB Director nominee unless the Senate votes to weaken the CFPB. Forty-four Republican Senators signed a letter to the President essentially ensuring that President Obama has no choice but to make a recess appointment.
Despite these legislative distractions, Elizabeth Warren has been the President’s Special Advisor since last year, working every day to stand up the CFPB. She has met with every stakeholder imaginable, she has hired a top-notch team of individuals to work under her and she has been completely open and transparent about what the Bureau is working on during this interim period before the Bureau formally begins to operate on July 21.
The Congresswoman has signed on to a letter to President Obama requesting that he use every option available to him, including a recess appointment if necessary, to ensure that Ms. Warren is the CFPB’s first Director. Please find the attached letter.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Chris
Chris Flores
Field Representative
Office of Congresswoman Matsui
Robert T. Matsui US Courthouse
501-I St., Ste. 12-600, Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-498-5600 Fax: 916-444-6117
www.house.gov/matsui
Signed the letter: Maloney, Frank, Ellison, Brad Miller, Carson, Grijalvo, Capuano, Hirono, Moran, George Miller, Lowey, P:ingree, Blumenauer, DeLauro, Gutierrez, Slaughter, Capps, Woolsey, DeFazio, Hinchey, Sarbanes, Nadler, Rangel, Speier, Norton, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Waters, Schakowsky, Lynch, Farr, Tierney, Lofgren, Doggett, Holt, Roybal-Allard, Fattah, McGovern, Conyers, Jackson, Tim Ryan, McDermott, Honda, Filner, Yarmuth, Wu, Tsongas, Bass, Sheilah Jackson Lee, Chu, Donna Edwards, Cohen, Barbara Lee, Eshoo, McCollum, Towns, Frederica Wilson, Stark, Fudge, Schiff, Hanabusa, Deutch, Tonko, Doyle, Danny Davis, Richardson, VanHollen, Lujan, Garamendi, Waxman, Olver, Napolitano, Mike Thomson, Ackerman, Pascrell, Henry Johnson Jr., Sherman, Larson, Price, Cicilline, Murphy, Cummings., Susan Davis, Kildee, Langwin, Kucinich, Engel, Matsui
*******************************************************************************************************************
Leading Seniors’ Advocacy Group Urges Vice President Joe Biden To Reject Expanding Payroll Tax Holiday
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has written to Vice President Joe Biden, who’s now leading Congressional/White House debt talks, urging him to reject proposals which would extend or expand the diversion of billions of dollars in Social Security payroll taxes.
“Just six months ago, Washington promised the $112 billion dollar diversion of payroll taxes from Social Security would be a ‘temporary’ stimulus. Now, it appears some leaders who are negotiating a debt ceiling deal are proposing not only to extend this stimulus measure but actually expand it…diverting even more money away from Social Security. Diverting revenue from Social Security is not fiscal responsibility. There are other ways to provide effective stimulus that don’t endanger Social Security’s funding, including the successful ‘Make Work Pay Tax Credit’. Poll after poll has shown, Americans do not support using Social Security as a bargaining chip in yet another ‘Let’s Make a Deal’ style negotiation in Washington.” Max Richtman, NCPSSM Executive Vice President/Acting CEO
NCPSSM’s letter to Vice President Biden reminds negotiators that American workers have successfully funded the Social Security program for 75 years and that critical linkage between contributions and benefits is what keeps Social Security a self-funded program. Proposals to divert workers’ payroll taxes way from Social Security threaten the program’s independence, forcing it to compete for already limited federal dollars.
A copy of the letter can be found on our website at: http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/letter_vp_pay_roll_tax_holiday/

TUE MAY 10, 2011 AT 11:30 AM PDT
Alan Simpson gives the finger to AARP, says Social Security is 'not a retirement program'
by Joan McCarter for Daily Kos

Alan Simpson and his senior-citizen-hating ways are back in the news. It will come as a shock for most Social Security recipients to find out that Social Security isn't a retirement program. And that a former Senator who was chosen by the President to lead an important government commission has so much contempt for government programs.

WASHINGTON—Alan Simpson's cold relationship with AARP is no secret, but the former Republican Senator from Wyoming took it to a new level Friday. At an event hosted by the Investment Company Institute, Simpson delighted the finance industry audience members by aiming a rude gesture at the leading lobby for senior citizens....
Simpson's forceful gesture came after an extended diatribe against Social Security, which he said is a "Ponzi" scheme, "not a retirement program.”

Simpson argued that Social Security was originally intended more as a welfare program.

"It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in '37 and '38 to take care of people who were in distress—ditch diggers, wage earners—it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That's why they set retirement age at 65” for Social Security, he said.

Which of course, is not true. And Ryan Grim does an excellent job in this piece showing that, and exposing Simpson for the fraud that he is.

HuffPost suggested to Simpson during a telephone interview that his claim about life expectancy was misleading because his data include people who died in childhood of diseases that are now largely preventable. Incorporating such early deaths skews the average life expectancy number downward, making it appear as if people live dramatically longer today than they did half a century ago. According to the Social Security Administration's actuaries, women who lived to 65 in 1940 had a life expectancy of 79.7 years and men were expected to live 77.7 years.

"If that is the case—and I don't think it is—then that means they put in peanuts," said Simpson.

Simpson speculated that the data presented to him by HuffPost had been furnished by "the Catfood Commission people"—a reference to progressive critics of the deficit commission who gave president's panel that label.
Told that the data came directly from the Social Security Administration, Simpson continued to insist it was inaccurate, while misstating the nature of a statistical average: "If you're telling me that a guy who got to be 65 in 1940—that all of them lived to be 77—that is just not correct. Just because a guy gets to be 65, he's gonna live to be 77? Hell, that's my genre. That's not true," said Simpson, who will turn 80 in September..
..
The second prong of the Social Security critique relies on the coming wave of Baby Boomer retirements. This flood of retirees will tip the ratio of workers to pensioners out of whack, the argument goes.

"The statistics right now show a totally unsustainable program that cannot possibly function when 10,000 a day are coming into the Social Security system at 65," Simpson explained to HuffPost. "Was that ever planned [for]? That 10,000 a day would suddenly coming into the system?"

In fact, it was planned for: The Social Security Administration tracks births every year and knew by 1947 that 1946 had been a boom year. When the system was reformed in 1983 by the Greenspan Commission, the Baby Boom was specifically taken into account.

Simpson said that questioning his data wasn't helping to solve the underlying problem.

"This is the first time, the first time—and Erskine [Bowles, the deficit commission co-chair,] and I have been talking for a year and many months—that anyone's going to sit around and play with statistics like this," he told HuffPost. "Anything I tell you, you repudiate. You're the first guy in a year and a half who's stood out here with a sharp pencil playing a game that doesn't have a damn thing to do with: 'What the hell are you going to do with the system?"

The former senator enjoys a pension for his service in Congress, which lasted fewer than 20 years.

Of course, this isn't the first time Alan Simpson has been confronted with real Social Security statistics and facts. There's one extremely memorable occasion in which Simpson unleashed an obscene tirade at Alex Lawson, with Social Security Works in response to Lawson's informed questions about the program. Again, using actual information from the Social Security Administration, Simpson attacked, calling Lawson's facts "sophistry of babbling."

Simpson is a fraud and an ideologue, unable to separate whatever personal and long-standing resentment he has of the AARP (and apparently all senior citizens) from the truth about the program. When will this guy stop being the crazy uncle that everybody indulges and just thinks of as eccentric, and be recognized for the venomous, classless, charlatan that he is? That goes for his non-report with co-chair Erskine Bowles, as well.

WED MAY 11, 2011 AT 07:20 PM PDT
Alan Simpson's Social Security lessons
byJoan McCarterforDaily Kos

Alan Simpson's stunningly ignorant and arrogant exchange with HuffPo reporter Ryan Grim is making the rounds. In that interview, Simpson steadfastly proclaimed ignorance of Social Security's actual demographic statistics, and then proceeded to dismiss the information as unbelievable. Simpson and the catfood commission have advocated raising the retirement age, with Simpson doggedly repeating the falsehood that people are living longer.

First up, Ezra Klein responds with simple graph.

As co-chairman of the President Obama’s deficit commission, Simpson is one of the guys tasked with figuring out what to do about Social Security, and one of the arguments he’s charged with evaluating is that we should raise the retirement age specifically because people are living so much longer. There's no way for him to make a sound judgment if he lacks a basic familiarity with this data. But it seems that in this conversation with Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim, Alan Simpson not only didn't know the numbers but was so unfamiliar with them that he refused to believe they were true.
...
As the graph atop this post shows, the life expectancy increases we’ve seen have not been shared equally; the richer and whiter you are, the more your life expectancy has stretched. So raising the retirement age inflicts a double-blow on lower-income Americans: They already work more physically demanding jobs and die younger than the rich, but now they’re being told to work those jobs longer because people who aren’t them have seen large increases in life expectancy.

He circled back to the story with this, going through point-by-point eight facts about Social Security's demographics, concluding in part:

Most opinion elites — Simpson being one good example, and the U.S. Senate being another — show a very strong preference for working as long as possible. Most Americans show a very strong preference for retiring as early as possible. Elites who enjoy their jobs need to be very careful about generalizing their experience to people who don’t enjoy their jobs. More bluntly: Raising the retirement age is the worst of all possible options for reforming Social Security. It’s not only regressive, but it also falls most heavily on those with the worst jobs. Means-testing would be much better. [See here for the multitude of reasons means testing isn't a solution, either. —ed.]

Kevin Drum piles on:
Simpson is a guy who's taken very seriously on Social Security issues inside the Beltway. He's studied it for years. And yet, as he makes clear later in the interview, he simply had no idea any of this was true. No idea. And he doesn't believe it, even though this stuff is Social Security 101.

This is the kind of thing that explains why so many people think Social Security is some kind of fiscal time bomb. They just flatly don't understand the arithmetic. The plain fact is that Social Security is only modestly underfunded and can be fixed with a basket of quite moderate changes over the next 30 years or so. Anyone who understands the numbers knows this. People like Alan Simpson don't. But guess who gets the most press coverage?
As does Steve Benen:

[W]hen pressed on some of the basics—stuff anyone with a serious interest in these issues would learn on the first day—Simpson’s ignorance is just breathtaking. He’s making sweeping recommendations about the future of programs millions of Americans rely on, and yet, Simpson just doesn’t have his facts straight.

This isn’t some minor error of arithmetic. Simpson is lost on the entry-level details. It’s scandalous, or at least should be.

In some ways, all of these guys are taking it pretty easy on Simpson. He's not just ignorant on the "entry-level details" of Social Security—he's willfully ignorant. All of this information was undoubtedly made both available and very clear to him during the commission meetings and hearings. Simpson is refusing to believe it because he doesn't want to believe it. He's the equivalent of a birther in the realm of Social Security. Social Security Works Alex Lawsonexposed that aspect of Simpson last year, and Grim has just reaffirmed it.

What all three of these guys got right about Simpson, though, is that he shouldn't be leading the debate on how to reform Social Security.

Bernie Sander Filbuster in the Senate re: the Tax Deal

What are we doing now?

The Tax Deal: Why I hate it
Margie Metzler
Wednesday, December 08, 2010

President Obama has announced a “deal” with Republican leaders that leaves the Republicans gloating and Democrats demoralized and depressed. It is typically presented in the press as a two-year extension of tax cuts for the wealthy and for the middle class, such as it is now, in return for a one year extension of unemployment benefits.

First, keep in mind that this conversation is not over. There is yet no bill, and plenty of people are still fighting it.

But most critically for seniors on Social Security, there is a one year “holiday” of the payroll tax, from 6.2% to 4.2%. The payroll tax is the tax that workers pay that goes to support people currently on Social Security. As soon as a worker earns $106,800, she has reached the “cap,” and the payroll tax is no longer levied until the next year. We have always advocated that raising this cap when necessary is the best way to keep Social Security solvent.

When I first read about the cut in payroll taxes its importance slipped right by me. A 2% cut; so what?

But a 2% cut amounts to a 30% cut in the money going into the system to support seniors currently in the system and those entering this year. This will be catastrophic.

People hostile to Social Security have long known that it is hard to kill it because—surprise! —people like it. So their strategy has been twofold:

1. Divide the nation into two groups: those currently on Social Security and those far from it. Convince the first group that they will be able to stay on Social Security (and to hell with everyone else), and the second that it won’t be there by the time they get that old, so why fight for it? The whole privatization argument comes out of this.
2. Starve the beast (Grover Norquist): make sure there isn’t enough money to keep it going, so it gradually crumbles away to nothing. (The current fight.)

The 30% cut in Social Security income will be a huge hit in the next year, if it passes. But is it likely the cut will be reinstated in a year? That will be framed as a tax increase, especially with the current Congress, which will make it virtually impossible.

• How will the missing income be replaced? By borrowing from the General fund. We will be replacing money from the trust fund and replacing it with debt. And more, this demolishes the 75-year principle of a fence between Social Security and the general fund, therefore making it a contributor to the deficit.
• It’s easy to enact tax cuts, but hard to end them. Remember the “temporary” Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? Restoring the payroll tax cut on someone making $100,000 a year will be framed as a tax increase of $2,000, or $400 on someone making $20,000 a year.
• It will undermine Social Security’s long-term solvency. It would double the 75-year projected shortfall in the 1010 Trustees Report.
• If it’s not paid back, it will lead to massive benefits cuts, and ultimately turn the program into a charity rather than an insurance program.
• It will promote privatization of Social Security. Once people are used to having the 2% cut they will be more susceptible to arguments that they should be able to invest this money. And the next crash with wipe them out.

We need to fight back.

• Please continue to call and write your Senators, Congress members and Senators.
• Keep on speaking up, with friends and family, in the grocery store line, in classes, on the street.
• Remember, with younger people, the only way Social Security will be in crisis is if we don’t fight for it. And to older people, we are all in this together and it does matter for our children and grandchildren.
• If you know someone who wants a speaker, please let me know. I have my own projector and will travel.
• Let’s continue to ally ourselves with other organizations of like minds and rally, write, and yell.
• Keep those letters to the editor coming.
• Pass this on and other articles on to everyone you can think of.
• See if you can get a resolution passed by your Central committee.

Back to top

********************************************************************************

The Effort to Claim That Economists Support Obama's Capitulation on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-effort-to-claim-that-_b_794862.html
William K. Black, Huff Post
Dec. 10, 2010
You know the administration is desperate when it creates a web page citing economists who support its capitulation on taxes. Read more…

******************************************************************************

Back to top

Published on The Nation http://www.thenation.com/article/157022/obama-threatens-social-security
Obama Threatens Social Security
William Greider | December 9, 2010
The most dangerous feature in the president's proposed compromise on taxes is not the $700 billion tax cut for billionaires. It is the Trojan horse provision that threatens to destroy Social Security by undermining the longterm solvency of the social insurance system.
Barack Obama has proposed to knock two percent off the FICA deductions every worker regularly contributes to the Social Security Trust Fund, the money set aside for their future retirement benefits. Obama’s one-year tax relief sounds attractive and workers can surely use the money, but the consequences could prove deadly for the federal government’s most popular program. Read more….

Cutting contributions to Social Security Signals the Beginning of the End
By NCPSSM | December 7, 2010
PAYROLL TAX “HOLIDAY” IS ANYTHING BUT
“Even though Social Security contributed nothing to the current economic crisis, it has been bartered in a deal that provides deficit busting tax cuts for the wealthy. Diverting $120 billion in Social Security contributions for a so-called ‘tax holiday’ may sound like a good deal for workers now but it’s bad business for the program that a majority of middle-class seniors will rely upon in the future.”… Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO Read more…

FDR, FRANCES PERKINS, PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY, SOCIAL SECURITY
http://bestpossiblelife.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/payroll-tax-holiday-another-idea-that-could-come-from-the-grinch/
Payroll tax holiday — another idea that could come from the Grinch
In Uncategorized on December 9, 2010 at 3:04 pm
During the Reagan era, an administration staffer came up with the term “starve the beast” when discussing his perceived solution of cutting taxes to force a reduction in government spending.
Today, opponents of Social Security, who evidently consider the program a “beast,” are working overtime to cut its funding and thus force the pay-as-you-go program to reduce benefits — perhaps eventually leading to a far different program. Read more….

The Insider: Speier rips Obama, tax cut deal
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo-county/ci_16829980
Rep. Jackie Speier on Friday lambasted the tax cut deal President Barack Obama reached with Republicans this week, vowing not to support it unless key provisions are changed, and she questioned the president's political values.
Speier said the package doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy, gives away far too much to the rich and threatens the existence of Social Security.
"It's more than TARP, it's more than the stimulus, it's more than any of the interventions we have undertaken (to spur the economy)," she said of the estimated $900 billion deal.” Read more….

Back to top

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2010

The Catfood Commission is done, thanks to you!

They missed the deadline and only got 11 out of the 14 votes. There are Senators who still want to vote on it, but that seems to be dying down.

Below: a compendium of articles on today's events, plus Schakowky's plan.

Back to top
Thanks again for all that you do!
***************************************

New deficit plan still eyes Social Security trims
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=12278657
By ANDREW TAYLOR, JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON — The co-chairmen of President Barack Obama's deficit commission are sticking with politically explosive proposals to raise the Social Security retirement age and curb benefit increases in a revised plan to wrestle the deficit under control. More...
Back to top

"DEEPLY DIVIDED" DEFICIT PANEL DELAYING VOTE, SHUTTING OUT DEM MEMBER
by Joan McCarter
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/30/924291/-Deeply-divided-deficit-panel-delaying-vote,-shutting-out-Dem-member
There's good news and bad news from the catfood commission. The good news: it's unlikely to reach agreement:
A presidential commission on balancing the U.S. budget likely will fail Wednesday to secure enough support for its deficit-cutting plan to trigger a congressional vote on it, aides and analysts said.
With just a day left before it releases the plan, the commission's co-chairmen were still scrambling to nail down 14 votes among the commission's 18 members—a super-majority threshold called for when the panel was created in February. More...
Back to top

SIMPSON AND BOWLES DEFY EXECUTIVE ORDER, WANT TO DELAY CATFOOD COMMISSION VOTE
By: David Dayen Tuesday November 30, 2010 12:19 pm
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/11/30/simpson-and-bowles-defy-executive-order-want-to-delay-catfood-commission-vote/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
For most of the week, you could see the wheels coming off of the Catfood Commission. First we heard that “they may surprise us,” but then there was this moving of the goalposts. Despite the fact that 14 of the 18 panel members had to agree to secure any recommendations which would go to Congress for a vote, now insiders were saying that a majority vote would show a signal of support.
But it’s clear that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson can’t even get that. They canceled a planned public meeting today in favor of more private negotiation. And reports emerged that the panel was simply deeply divided on the issues. More...
Back to top

Schakowsky Offers Alternative to Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Plan
http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2777:schakowsky-alternative-to-simpson-bowles-deficit-reduction-plan&catid=21:2010-press-releases&Itemid=58
Plan Would Close Deficit without Forcing the Middle Class to Pay the Bill
Read the Schakowsky Deficit Reduction Plan
WASHINGTON, DC (November 16, 2010) – Today Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a memberof the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, offered a comprehensive proposal to reduce the federal deficit without making middle class Americans foot the bill. Schakowsky's plan is an alternative to the Bowles-Simpson plan and would reduce the deficit by $441 billion in 2015, surpassing President Obama’s $250 billion target. Critically, the Schakowsky plan accomplishes deficit reduction without making cuts to essential federal expenditures that benefit the middle class. In unveiling her proposal, Schakowsky made the following statement:
“The President’s Fiscal Commission has been given a concrete goal: to achieve primary budget balance in 2015, ensuring that all spending is paid for except for interest on the national debt. Last week, co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson laid out their plan, which they presented to the Commission and to the public. Their proposal would have serious consequences for lower and middle class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it.
“I am releasing my own plan today because I believe that there is a better way to achieve our goal – one that protects the poor and the middle-class.
“Lower and middle class Americans did not cause the deficit.
“Just ten years ago the federal budget was generating a surplus as far as the eye could see. That surplus was turned into a deficit due to massive tax cuts – mainly to wealthy Americans; two wars paid for by borrowed money; and a major recession caused by the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks.
“Over the last decade the incomes of middle class Americans have actually shrunk, while those of the wealthiest two percent of the population have exploded.
“The middle class did not benefit from the Republican economic policies that led to the current deficit – they were the victims – they should not be called upon to pick up the tab.
“Fixing the Federal deficit is not an end in itself. The goal of budget policy should be to assure long-term, widely shared economic growth. Economic growth is not just good for businesses and families – it will reduce the deficit. Sustained, long-term economic growth requires that we end the trend of concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the rich and less and less in the hands of a middle class that can then afford to buy the products and services that will sustain economic growth.
“The proposals included in this plan are aimed at bringing the federal deficit under control using policies that will put Americans back to work and strengthen middle class incomes: the foundation of long-term economic growth. More...

Back to top

Deficit Commission Moves The Goalpost, Disses Leading Progressive Member
By Isaiah J. Poole
November 30, 2010 - 10:02am ET
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010114830/deficit-commission-moves-goalpost-disses-leading-progressive-member
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., says that as of this morning she had not been shown the latest proposal of the White House deficit commission, even as she says it is being "shopped around" by its co-chairs in an effort to get the support of a simple majority of its 18 members—not the support of 14 members as was its original goal.
Schakowsky confirmed this shift in an interview with OurFuture.org after giving a private briefing to members of the Tuesday Group, a meeting of progressive organization leaders convened by the Campaign for America's Future.
The deficit commission—formally known as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform—was scheduled to hold a public meeting today in advance of its planned release of its recommendations Wednesday, but the meeting was abruptly canceled. Instead, its co-chairs, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, were tweaking the deficit reduction plan they made public earlier this month, which includes proposals to cut Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and other key programs.
When the commission was created by President Obama, its charge was to come up with a set of recommendations that would be endorsed by 14 of its members. Those recommendations would then be sent to Congress for an up-or-down vote. More...
Back to top

Deficit Dialog: An Exchange of Letters With Pete Peterson's Foundation
by Richard (RJ) Eskow
November 24, 2010

Back to top
Tax The Rich: A Deficit Plan That Doesn't Hit We, the People
by Dave Johnson
November 26, 2010

Back to top

Contact Info
President Obama: White House website form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
Phone Numbers: Comments: 202-456-1111; Switchboard: 202-456-1414
The Commission: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (no phone no.)
e-mail commission@fc.eop.gov

Congressman Dan Lungren: e-mail: https://lungren.house.gov/?sectionid=91
Phone: (202) 225-5716 District Office Phone: (916) 859-9906

Congresswoman Doris Matsui: D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-7163; Sac Office Phone: (916) 498-5600
e-mail: http://www.matsui.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=92

Congressman Tom McClintock: D.C.: (202) 225-2511; dist. Ofc., (916) 786-5560
e-mail: http://mcclintock.house.gov/contact/

Senator Barbara Boxer: Email: http://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/
Dist. Ofc., (916) 448-2787; D.C. (202) 228-3865

Senator Dianne Feinstein: e-mail: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
Dist. Ofc. (415) 393-0707; D.C. Phone: (202) 224-3841

Back to top

Report from the 2010 Fiscal Commission
Co-Chairs Quietly Posted Nov. 10, 2010

The Commission is composed of 18 people; 14 out of the 18 have to agree on a report to be submitted to the President by Dec. 1. If they don’t agree, the Commission is disbanded and nothing happens. The President is not required to do anything about the report, when and if it is released, but he has committed to give it to the Senate for an up-and-down vote and then to the House. There can be no discussions and no amendments, just accept or reject the whole package.

The actual report has not come out. However, today the Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan K. Stimson quietly posted a “report” on its website. No one knows why, especially because the full report is due in less than three weeks. But members Rep Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka have issued strong statements of dissent and have released the Grijalva letter in protest. Signatories of that letter are below.

We are asking our members to increase their letter writing, including letters and calls to the President and the Commission, to their Senators and Representatives, and letters of support to those who have signed the Grijalva letter.

Our thanks to these Congresspersons!
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Alan Grayson (D-FL) Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
John Conyers (D-MI) Danny Davis (D-IL) Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Dan Maffei (D-NY) Marcia Fudge (D-OH) Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH) Alcee Hastings (D-FL) John Lewis (D-GA)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME) Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) James Oberstar (D-MN)
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) John Olver (D-MA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI) Laura Richardson (D-CA) Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Larry Kissell (D-NC) Andre Carson (D-IN) Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Yvette Clarke (D-NY) Michael Michaud (D-ME)
Joseph Courtney (D-CT) Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Donna Edwards (D-MD) Keith Ellison (D-MN) Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Bob Filner (D-CA) Barney Frank (D-MA) Michael Arcuri (D-NY)
Barbara Lee (D-CA) John Hall (D-NY) Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Kendrick Meek (D-FL) Debbie Halvorson (D-IL) Mark Critz (D-PA)
Richard Neal (D-MA) Phil Hare (D-IL) John Dingell (D-MI)
George Miller (D-CA) Betty Sutton (D-OH) William Delahunt (D-MA)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) Paul Tonko (D-NY) José Serrano (D-NY)
Mark Schauer (D-MI) Edolphus Towns (D-NY) Sam Farr (D-CA)
Zach Space (D-OH) Lois Capps (D-CA) Edward Markey (D-MA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN) Michael Doyle (D-PA) Eleanor Norton (D-DC)
Mike Doyle (D-PA) Steven Kagen (D-WI) Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Corrine Brown (D-FL) Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) Jesse Jackson (D-IL)
David Wu (D-OR) Nita Lowey (D-NY) Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Joe Baca (D-CA) Jim McDermott (D-WA) Ed Pastor (D-AZ)
Ted Deutch (D-FL) Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Maxine Waters (D-CA)

References:

• The Women and Social Security Email Alert produced by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) provides women-oriented information on and analysis of proposed changes in Social Security, up-to-date developments in the debate, and current research and statistics. The alert also includes announcements of key activities on Social Security, especially those of special interest to women. This e-mail alert is part of IWPR's mission to keep women's concerns at the center of current policy debates.
  The Report: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/about
• Huffington Post article by Sam Stein: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/debt-commission-report-social-security-medicare-_n_781606.html
• Washington Post article by Ezra Klein: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/there_is_no_report_from_the_fi.html
• Mechael Hiltzik, Washington Post: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/11/michael-hiltzik-the-deficit-commission-chairs-lies-about-social-security.html
• Eric Kingston of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/about. "It cuts benefits for today’s seniors and persons with disabilities. It cuts Social Security benefits for virtually every American alive today and yet to be born."
• Paul Krugman, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/unserious-people-2/ , explains that if the retirement age is raised, those who make the least will be paying for those who make the most. "Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever."
• Complete toolkit produced by www.socialsecuritymatters.org and repurposed for us: http://www.owlca.org/FinalFullToolkit08102010.doc
• OWL-CA and Gray Panthers Call to action:http://www.owlca.org/commissioncalltoaction.doc
• Social Security and the deficit:http://www.owlca.org/Social%20Security%20and%20the%20deficit.doc
• List of resources: http://www.owlca.org/Resources.doc
• Sample letter: http://www.owlca.org/sampleOWL.doc
• Contacts: http://www.owlca.org/Contact%20Obama%20Now.doc
• “Achieving a ‘Leninist’ Strategy.” (The Cato Journal, Fall 1983; http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj3n2/cj3n2-11.pdf.)
• Social Security Blog: www.owlca.blogspot.com

Back to top

Back to top

OWL Participates in 19 America Speaks Events

Among spending options, reductions in defense spending received the greatest support. 85% of
participants expressed support for reducing defense spending by at least 5%, which included 51% of participants who expressed support for a 15% cut. 68% of participants expressed support for reducing All Other Non-Defense spending by at least 5%. 62% of participants expressed support for reducing health care spending by at least 5%. No options for reducing Social Security benefits received a majority of support. Rather, 60% of participants expressed support for raising the cap on payroll taxes to 90%.

OWL member Margie Metzler's report on the session, which also includes reports by Michael Lyon of Gray Panthers and Jodi Reid of CARA (Word)

Press release by OWL national office (PDF)

Power Point from OWL national

Worksheet from the session (PDF)

Talking Points prepared in advances (PDF)

Back to top

What can you do?

Right now, the fight is over repealing Health Care reform. Pleas contact your Representative (the fight is in the House) and tell them how you feel. Congresswoman Matsui has asked us for our stories, and they are always eager to have them. But send them to ;tOp

Write the President, Senators, Congresspeople, and the Commission: More....

Here’s I what I believe will be happening with The Commission (The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/): The commission, to recap, was appointed by President Obama and tasked with coming up with ways to deal with the deficit. As you know, the leaders, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, have tipped their hands about their focusing on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid:

Simpson:
• "We are going to stick with the big three [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid]" (CNBC, 2/22/10)
• “We are talking about Social Security.” (Fox News, 2/18/10)
• “It’ll be a bloodbath…you've got to scrub out [of] the equation the AARP, the Committee for the Preservation of Social Security and Medicare, the Gray Panthers, the Pink Panther, the whatever. Those people are lying... [They] don't care a whit about their grandchildren.”(CNBC, 2/22/10)

Bowles:
• “Everything’s on the table.” (CNN, 3/1/10)
• “We’re going to mess with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.” (N.C. Bankers Assoc., 3/10/10)
• Previously Bowles had worked on a plan for Social Security that included "raising the minimum age required for Social Security and for changing the COLA formula." This is basically the same plan that is being batted around Washington today. (The Pact by Steven Gillon: 2008)

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/commission-watch

The Commission is composed of 18 people, and 14 of them have to agree on a report to be submitted to the President by Dec. 1. He doesn’t have to go anywhere with it, I think, but he has committed to give it to the Senate for an up-and-down vote and then to the House. There can be no discussions and no amendments, just accept or reject the whole package. The scuttlebutt I hear is that the real focus is on Social Security, and that they are going to go for raising the age of full eligibility to 70.

I really want us all to write our little fingers off before Dec. 1. Write early and often! Write to the commission, the President, your Senators and Congresspersons. Here is a letter repurposed (“borrowed”) from the National Committee (http://www.ncpssm.org/). It is a Word document; change it as you will and send it as a snail mail or an email. Or write your own. Here is the letter:

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Congressman XXX
Address
City, State Zip

Dear Congressman XXX
:
As a member of the Older Women’s League of California, I would like to reaffirm the strong opposition of our members and supporters to the enactment of any form of entitlement Commission or Task Force. We have been closely watching the current Presidential Commission, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

Social Security and Medicare are critical lifelines for America’s seniors. Seniors deserve to have changes to these programs receive substantive consideration that focuses on the circumstances of old age and not on the need for reductions in the budget. Major changes to these programs should be considered by Congress in an open legislative process. We should not bypass the important protections of widespread public involvement.

For these reasons, our organization opposes any Commission that works outside the normal legislative process.

Cuts in Social Security Benefits Should Not be Enacted for the Purpose of Reducing the Deficit

We strongly oppose reducing Social Security benefits or cutting Medicare in order to balance the federal budget whether it is for the short-term, mid-term or long-term. Social Security, funded by a dedicated payroll tax, represents the bedrock retirement income of nearly every American. Social Security provides a modest benefit of only $13,800 a year for the average retiree, and less for women. It is the only source of retirement income for nearly 20 percent of retirees and represents over half the income of nearly two thirds of beneficiaries. As Americans have seen unions and pensions erode over the past three decades, and their 401K investments shrivel in the past three years, we are further alarmed. We fought the Bush-era efforts at privatization fiercely, largely because we feared what actually happened to the stock market.

To urge cuts in Social Security as a means of reducing the federal deficit would do unnecessary harm to generations of retirees. Social Security needs to be adjusted modestly to reach solvency, but that is a manageable task. Seniors would surely see the enactment of a commission as part of a bargain that pits the current deficit against the income security of tomorrow’s elderly.

Lack of Transparency and Public Engagement Leaves the American People out of the Discussion

Under the current commission, a very small group of legislators and administration officials would design legislation to address issues affecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid along with federal taxes. The legislation would then be fast-tracked through Congress on a limited time schedule with no opportunity for amendment. This runs counter to the call by the new Administration for transparency and participation by the American public in policy decisions. Enacting restrictive timelines and prohibiting amendments to push through changes of this importance to millions of Americans, especially our elderly, ultimately disenfranchises the public and demolishes the political process.

Social Security and Medicare are Distinct Programs and Need to be Addressed Separately

Contrary to popular rhetoric the Social Security program is not in crisis. According to the Social Security Trustees, Social Security will have sufficient funds to pay full benefits through the year 2037; the Congressional budget Office projects that full benefits can be paid through 2047. No other federal program is subject to such strict, long-term spending restrictions and oversight. The Social Security Trustees report every year on the income and outgo of the fund over a 75 year period. Over the next 75 years, Social Security has only a modest and manageable funding gap.

Medicare Provides Basic, Affordable, Universal Health Care to Seniors

While Medicare may not be perfect, it has been a godsend for millions o seniors who were abandoned by private industry decades age. Prior to Medicare, less than 50 percent of seniors had health care coverage. Today, Medicare is critical in providing for the health care needs of 97 percent of those over age 65. About 70 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes under $25,000 a year and 85 percent have incomes under $40,000. Almost two out of three elderly households have incomes under $20,000, and they are already spending 30 to 50 percent of their incomes on health care, even with Medicare coverage.

Medicare’s Costs are Driven by the Cost of Health Care

Although Medicare costs are rising for both beneficiaries and the federal government, the increases are not unique to Medicare. Because Medicare is a health care program, it is subject to the same upward inflationary pressures that are forcing many employers to drop their policies and leave their workers to join the ranks of America’s 46 million uninsured. In fact, Medicare’s low administrative overhead and efficiencies of service have helped Medicare’s costs grow at roughly the same rate as the cost of private health insurance for the uner-65 population, despite seniors’ higher need for services.

America Does Not Face an “Entitlement” Crisis; It Faces A Health Care Financing Problem

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the rate at which health care costs grow relative to national income—rather that the aging of the population—is the most important determinant of future federal Medicare and Medicaid spending. In fact, projections by CBO show that, if every entitlement in the federal budget were repealed outright—eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other critical programs—but nothing were done to slow the growth in health care costs overall, we would still find ourselves spending almost 70 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on health care by 2082. On the other hand, if the rate of growth in overall health care is restrained so it is no longer growing faster than the rest.

Social Security and Medicare are Needed Now More than Ever

The current economic meltdown has reinforced the importance of Social Security as the basic foundation for retirement. The collapse of investment savings and the sharp decline in housing values have significantly reduced the retirement security of millions of Americans. Social Security was created in times much like today to provide American with a foundation of security they could count on in old age. Surely, the lesson of the current financial crisis is not that we should reduce the protections of America’s most successful retirement security program. Nor is the lesson that we should cut health benefits fort those over 65 when health coverage for all Americans has emerged as an achievable goal.

We strongly urge you to oppose any measures that would authorize a commission or task force to create fast-tracked and non-amendable legislation affecting Social Security or Medicare and the beneficiaries they serve.

Cordially,
(your name)

And here is contact info:

Contact Obama
White House website form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
Write to the President: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers: Comments: 202-456-1111; Switchboard: 202-456-1414
TTY/TDD Comments: 202-456-6213; Visitors Office: 202-456-2121

The Commission: National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/
e-mail commission@fc.eop.gov
General Inquiries: commission@fc.eop.gov
Press inquiries: press@fc.eop.gov
Mailing Address: 1650 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20504

Congressman Dan Lungren
2339 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 220, Gold River, CA 95670
e-mail: https://lungren.house.gov//index.cfm?sectionid=84&sectiontree=3,84
Washington Office • 2262 Rayburn HOB • Washington DC 20515 • Phone: (202) 225-5716 • Fax: (202) 226-1298 • District Office • 2339 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 220 • Gold River, CA 95670 • Phone: (916) 859-9906 • Fax: (916) 859-9976

Congresswoman Doris Matsui
Washington, D.C. Office
Phone: (202) 225-7163
Fax: (202) 225-0566
Sacramento Office
Phone: (916) 498-5600
Fax: (916) 444-6117
Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse
501 I Street, Suite 12-600
Sacramento, CA
95814-7305
Hours: M-F 8am-5pm PST
e-mail: https://forms.house.gov/matsui/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Congressman Tom McClintock
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
508 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2511
Fax: (202) 225-5444
District Office
4230 Douglas Blvd. Suite 200
Granite Bay, Ca 95746
Phone: (916) 786-5560
Fax: (916) 786-6364e-mail: http://mcclintock.house.gov/contact/

Senator Barbara Boxer
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/policycomments.cfm
Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
501 I Street, Suite 7-600
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 448-2787
(202) 228-3865 fax
Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3553

Senator Dianne Feinstein:
e-mail: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe
San Francisco
One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104
Main: (415) 393-0707
Fax: (415) 393-0710
Washington, D.C.: United States Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building 20510
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

Back to top

More on Commission members from Firedog Lake, (http://firedoglake.com/search/?cx=012863467380897931540:bacmcr9sohw&cof=FORID:11&ie=UTF-8&q=social&sa=Search&siteurl=fdlaction.firedoglake.com/) which came up with the term “Catfood Commission”: Subsequent picks only heightened fears that the commission’s real task was to slip cuts to Social Security by a public that, for the most part, is unaware of the commission. Many of the picks have a "history of support for both benefit cuts and privatization of Social Security."

PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENTS
Co-chair Alan Simpson (fmr. U.S. Senator R-Wyoming)
Dave M. Cote (Honeywell International)
Ann M. Fudge (fmr. CEO Young & Rubicam Brands
Co-chair Erskine Bowles (fmr. White House Chief of Staff)
Andy Stern (fmr. president of Service Employees International Union)
Alice Rivlin (Brookings Institution)

HOUSE
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas)
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Michigan)
Rep. John Spratt (D-South Carolina)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois)

SENATE
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)

Back to top

Resources: More information on Social Security

Complete toolkit produced by www.socialsecuritymatters.org and repurposed for us

OWL-CA and Gray Panthers Call to action

Social Security and the Deficit

List of resources

Sample letter

Contact information

Presentation to HCA Nov. 6

Resources

WEBSITES

http://www.owlca.org OWL California takes up the fight for Social Security (includes Alan K. Simpson vs. OWL; Jackie Speier and Bernie Sanders on Social Security)

www.gpcal.org California and Sacramento Gray Panthers

Owl and others: This site used to have resources including the toolkit. but it is bbeing modified. www.SocialSecurityMatters.org

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/commission-watch

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

http://crr.bc.edu/ Center for Retirement Research, Boston College

National Academy of Social Insurance: http://www.nasi.org/

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/social-security-works-0 Strengthen Social Security (used to be Social Security Works)

http://www.ncpssm.org/ National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

FACT SHEETS

The Toolkit
• Children and Families Have a Stake in Social Security, April 2010 – Generations United.
• Single Women’s Retirement Income Falls Short of the Elder Economic Security Standard™ Index, March 2009 – Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW).

BLOGS
• Social Security Isn’t In ‘Crisis’ - but Older Women Are, March 2010 - Stacy Sanders, WOW.
• Doing Nothing Huffington Post, January 2010 - Ashley Carson, OWL.
• Senators…Keep your hands off Social Security Pension News, November 2009 - Karen Friedman, the Pension Rights Center.
• www.owlca.blogspot.com: A senior woman on Social Security (Margie Metzler)

REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
• Social Security and the Age of Retirement, June 2010 – Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR).
• Opposing View: Hands off Social Security, March 2010 - Josh Bivens.
• Taming the Deficit - Saving Our Children from Themselves, December 2009 - Dean Baker and David Rosnick, CEPR.
• Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, November 2009 - Nancy J. Altman, J.D., et al.
• Fixing Social Security: Adequate Benefits, Adequate Financing, October 2009 – National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI).
• Economic Crisis Fuels Support for Social Security, October 2009 – NASI.
• Demystifying the Deficit, Social Security Finances and the Budget, August 2009 – Ashley Carson, OWL
• Social Security Finances: Findings of the 2009 Trustees Report, May 2009 - Joni Lavery, NASI.
• CEPR Statement on Social Security Trustees Report, May 2009 – CEPR.

BOOKS

Social Security: The Phony Crisis by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot. 1999.

The Battle for Social Security by Nancy Altman. 2005.

Social Security and its Enemies: The Case for America’s Most Efficient Insurance Program. Max J. Skidmore. 1999.

False Alarm: Why the Greatest Threat to Social SEcurity and Medicare is the Campaign to "Save" Them. Joseph White. A Century Foundation Book. 2001.

The Plot Against Social Security: How the Bush Plan is Endangering Our Financial Future. Michael A. Hiltzik. 2005.

This is the perfect time to join OWL!

We would also love to hear from you! E-mail us at owlca@owlca.org.

Back to top