National Audio Conference on the Federal Budget

Audio Conference Sponsored by SPOTLIGHT on POVERTY and OPPORTUNITY and the SHRIVER CENTER

Featuring Rep. Jan Schakowsky

May 9, 2011, 4:00-4:30 pm EST

Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity and the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law are excited to co-sponsor a national audio conference featuring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D – IL) offering an insider's perspective on the latest budget developments in Congress. Sign Up Now

After a bruising battle around the federal budget for FY 2011, which resulted in $38 billion in spending cuts and a near shutdown of the government, Congress is now beginning debate on the budget for FY 2012. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has developed a budget blueprint that is $6.2 trillion lower than President Barack Obama's plan. The Ryan blueprint includes privatizing Medicare, turning Medicaid into a block grant, and lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky served on President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. She opposed the deficit reduction proposal presented by the co-chairs and offered her own approach, which reached the same fiscal goals without cutting Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. The Schakowsky plan also addressed income disparity – which is at its greatest level since 1928.

Sign Up Now. When you sign up, you can send in your questions to audioconference@clasp.org for this half hour audio conference.

To attend the audio conference, please RSVP here.

Identification & Tracking Legislation in Congress

This blog is tracking legislation in the areas of:

Aging
Disability Assistance
Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security and Elderly Assistance

The tracking of introduced bills and their status is provided via GovTrack.us and may be found in the right sidebar and at the bottom of the page. Clicking on the bill title will connect to GovTrack's information on the bill including bill summary, complete bill language, co-sponsors and the current status of the bill in the legislative process.

There are no individual posts on specific bills in posts section.

Jeffrey Sachs: The People's Budget

Image via Wikipedia

by Jeffrey Sachs

Just when it seemed that all of Washington had lost its values and its connection with the American people, a bolt of hope has arrived. It is the People's Budget put forward by the co-chairs of the 80-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. Their plan is humane, responsible, and most of all sensible, reflecting the true values of the American people and the real needs of the floundering economy. Unlike Paul Ryan's almost absurdly vicious attack on the poor and working class, the People's Budget would close the deficit by raising taxes on the rich, taming health care costs (including a public option), and ending the military spending on wars and wasteful weapons systems.

There are now four budget positions on the table.

More

National Council on Aging: Ask Congress to Protect Services for Vulnerable Seniors

Congress is currently proposing massive cuts in programs that provide jobs, affordable housing, and volunteer opportunities for older Americans.

Negotiations are now taking place on a historic budget-cutting bill that will likely be voted on the first week of April.

The House has already passed a bill that would:

• Cut the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) by 64%—eliminating jobs for more than 83,000 poor seniors in need of work and potentially shutting down the program in many communities across the nation.
• Eliminate funding for Senior Corps, “firing” more than 450,000 senior volunteers nationwide and denying vital services to vulnerable older adults, children, and their families in communities across the nation.
• Reduce by two-thirds Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly at a time when 1.3 million seniors have worst-case housing needs and increasing numbers are homeless.

Tell your Senators and Representative to reject cuts in jobs, housing, and volunteer programs for seniors!
Please use the sample letter below, edit it to put it in your own words, or make it even more powerful by adding a personal story about how an older adult you know is struggling to get a job or affordable housing or would be denied help or volunteer opportunities under Senior Corps.
Let your elected officials know that their constituents need help!

Recipients

• Your Senators
• Your Representative

More

Broken Trust of the Elderly - NYTimes.com

Image via CrunchBase
excerpts from NY Times Editorial

The hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, as well as several recent studies, make clear that elder abuse is a growing problem that far outmatches the resources available to fight it.

One national study estimated that in the last year 14 percent of older adults had been neglected, abused or exploited. The numbers could be far higher since the sample did not include people living in institutions or those with significant mental impairments. A 2009 study on financial exploitation estimated that elderly victims lost at least $2.6 billion a year to fraud and abuse.

. . .

The solutions begin with filling the gaps in data collection and services. The Government Accountability Office found that in 25 of 39 states surveyed, financing for adult protective services had fallen or flat-lined in the last five years. Case workers are poorly trained and overwhelmed. The study also found that federal programs to fight abuse are scattered ineffectively across the Department of Health and Human Services. The report urged the department to create a resource center to collect and share abuse data among the states.

Only with coordinated efforts — like those urged by the offices and agencies created years ago to advocate for children and victims of domestic violence — will real progress be made. The committee’s chairman, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, is sponsoring a bill to create an office of elder justice, in the Justice Department, to tighten reporting standards and definitions of elder abuse and to help states investigate cases and impose stricter protections for victims. Congress should pass it.

Full Editorial

TIME GOES BY | Update: Social Security and Government Shutdown

by Ronni Bennett

May I just say: Good god, I'm tired of this shit.

Congress members spend 50 percent of their time raising money from corporations for their next campaign; another 25 percent yammering inanities at media cameras; and when you subtract meal and potty breaks, maybe they work 10 or 15 percent of the time.

Okay, I'm better now.

Congress has made not one step forward in ending the impasse that would lead to a government shutdown seven days from today. The Republicans say it's the Democrats' fault, the Democrats say the reverse and they don't actually do anything.

Meanwhile, the media, punditocracy and the people wonder what happens to everyday life during a government shutdown. The concern on this blog is Social Security benefit checks.

If you do not listen to President Obama, Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – all of whom have said Social Security checks will not go out during a shutdown – elsewhere the consensus is, with a reservation or two, that they will be mailed and deposited as usual.

The Christian Science Monitor reports correctly that checked were delivered on schedule during the 1996 shutdown, but further notes that

“OMB officials say they are not responding to such hypothetical questions, because they don't expect a shutdown.”

Really. And your reason for that belief is?

CNN Money rounded up a couple of reasonably well-credentialed folks who are certain they know Social Security payments are safe:

"'I am absolutely sure the checks would be sent out,' said John F. Cooney, a partner at law firm Venable who designed shutdown plans for the government while employed at the Office of Management and Budget.

“Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and a trustee of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, backed that view, saying claims that benefits won't be paid are 'not true.'"

AARP spokesperson, Heather Heppner, isn't so sure:

”In particular, she said, those who are dependent on Social Security checks might face delays that could be devastating depending on a person's economic situation.”

AP says unequivocally but without sourcing that “Social Security checks would go out.”

As far as I can discern from a few phone calls and way too many hours searching the web yesterday, none of these people know what they're talking about. (I just hate it when I use up an entire day looking for a fact or two and all I get out of it is a post like this one with no answers. Which may account for my crankiness in the first couple of paragraphs.)

Who are we to believe when the top three Democrats in Washington say we will not get Social Security checks but most others disagree?

What the latter are basing their opinions on is that checks were sent during the 1996 shutdown, but there is no federal law requiring that to be so as there is for the military, FBI, security services and others to remain functioning.

Because 54 million people depend on Social Security, many for their entire income, you would think someone in government would step forward with a definitive answer. I mean, we're not talking movie money here; it's food and rent and heating and medicine. It is crucial to elders' planning to know if they can count on their Social Security benefit.

Earlier this week, I arranged for a transfer of some cash to my checking account and if my benefit check arrives, I can return it. But as some of you noted in Monday's comments, many people don't have that option.
Like I said above: god, I'm tired of this shit.


TIME GOES BY | Update: Social Security and Government Shutdown

HR 397 Reform Americans Can Afford Act of 2011

 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to take meaningful steps to lower health care costs and increase access to health insurance coverage without raising taxes, cutting Medicare benefits for seniors, adding to the national deficit, intervening in the doctor-patient relationship, or instituting a government takeover of health care.

Sponsor: Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA2] 13 Cosponsors

Full Text

Status:

Occurred: Introduced Jan 24, 2011
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Not Yet Occurred: Reported by Committee ...
Not Yet Occurred: House Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Senate Vote ...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President ...

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Jan 27, 2011 6:21AM]

Donna's Blog: Obama's Appeal For Cooperation Could Yield Positive Congressional Results

In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama issued a strong appeal to lawmakers to move into a new era of cooperation. Echoing this sentiment, members of Congress sat side by side with colleagues from opposing parties, rather than their tradition of party divide on either aisle. In the same spirit, Congress and the president should join together to promote and preserve policies that serve children, youth and older adults mutually, because we're stronger together.

Obama addressed the fiscal challenges ahead and announced a 5-year freeze on domestic spending. But, he made clear his commitment to preserving protections to those who need it most my making sure we "are not doing on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens."

We applaud the president's challenge to find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security, without putting at risk current retirees or people with disabilities and without slashing benefits for future generations. His call should not overlook the critical role Social Security also plays in the lives of 6.5 million children today that receive part of their family income from it.

Reiterating his commitment to education, the president noted in order to achieve innovation to produce jobs in America, then we must win the race to educate our children. We support early investments to provide every child with an opportunity to succeed.

The president's call for a review of government regulations presents an opportunity to reduce barriers and streamline efficiency. Not only will this facilitate better communication and partnerships between government agencies, it will create opportunities for the government to work together to identify ways in which communities can deliver critical services to all generations.

Finally, President Obama's openness to improvements in the Affordable Care Ace is laudable, as is his unwillingness to return to practices that allowed insurance companies to deny coverage to someone of any age because if a pre-existing condition. He affirmed making prescription drugs cheaper for senior citizens and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents'coverage have been crucial facets of an important protection to families.

The president rightly declared "the future is ours to win." The path to that victory is paved with cooperation and intergenerational solutions to our nation's challenges. We urge Congress and the president to keep working together -- because we are stronger, together.

Donna's Blog: Obama's Appeal For Cooperation Could Yield Positive Congressional Results

H.R. 198: To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy (GovTrack.us)

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy.

Sponsor:	Rep. Michael Grimm [R-NY13] Cosponsors: Peter King [R-NY3] Leonard Lance [R-NJ7] Michael Michaud [D-ME2]
Text:	The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet.
Status:	Introduced Jan 6, 2011 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee ... House Vote ... Senate Vote ... Signed by President ... This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Jan 7, 2011 12:03PM]
Last Action:	Jan 6, 2011: Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Click Here for Current Status

Improving The Health Law In 2011: Realistic Ways To Reach Bipartisan Compromise - Kaiser Health News

by Robert Laszewski, President of Health Policy and Strategy Associates

The new health care law can be changed in ways that would make it acceptable to a bipartisan majority in the new Congress -- and, therefore, to the American people. But to find this elusive middle ground requires consideration of the competing philosophies at the heart of the nation's political divisions regarding this sweeping measure.

For starters, liberals want a health insurance system in which everyone is covered in a more equitable health insurance pool, but conservatives argue the individual mandate used to accomplish this goal is an unconstitutional encroachment on individual freedom.

Liberals also want a standardized competitive marketplace for health insurance ensuring consumers get comprehensive benefits, but conservatives argue that this would destroy choice and the free market, and create hundreds of pages of rules about what people can and can't buy.

And liberals want every citizen to be entitled to a comprehensive health insurance plan -- a defined benefit. But conservatives want individuals to have incentives, including tax incentives, to purchase and use coverage responsibly -- defined contribution health insurance.

However, there are ways to modify the new health law so that it includes the key elements both sides see as central to moving toward covering everyone and doing it in a way we can better afford.
The key elements of such a compromise could include:

1. Eliminating the individual mandate and replacing it with freedom of choice with responsibility

2. Eliminating the benefit mandates in the new law and creating a free market of health insurance choices, but with a standardized baseline for ease of comparison

3. Eliminating the "Cadillac" tax on high cost health insurance plans and introducing elements of a conservative defined contribution approach to the existing liberal defined benefit legislation

4. Using the budget gains from limiting the existing health insurance tax preference to pay for such things as improving the now inadequate insurance subsidies for the middle-class, permanently fixing the Medicare physician payment issue, or for reducing the deficit.

5. Letting states have the flexibility to experiment with alternatives

Donna's Blog: On Tap For the 112th Congress

From the Generations United Policy Team:

During the 111th Congress, we saw the passage of sweeping reforms in health care and consumer protections, which defend Americans from hidden fees, abusive terms and deceptive practices when obtaining credit cards and mortgages. However, the incoming congress will have a full slate of new issues to consider, which range from deficit reduction to education reform. Here are some issues that we anticipate the 112th Congress to address:

Continue Reading

OMG Social Security!? - The Boston Globe

Image via WikipediaBy Heather Boushey

IF YOU watch the political debates in Washington, you’d think that the future of Social Security matters only to today’s retirees. But the Social Security’s future solvency is most germane to the 40-and-under crowd.

Continue Reading

Social Security 'tax holiday': the unkindest cut of all - NJ.com

Image via WikipediaBy Rush Holt, D-Hopewell, represents the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey and Eileen Appelbaum is senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Nothing in the tax compromise worked out between the White House and congressional Republicans is fraught with as much danger to the economic security of working Americans as the partial payroll tax holiday.

Since its inception 75 years ago, Social Security has provided a dependable retirement income for millions of workers who contributed to the program during their working years. For many of these senior citizens, it has meant the difference between a dignified old age and the ignominy of poverty. And for 75 years, the enemies of Social Security have tried without success to undermine the program.

Democrats have strongly resisted every one of these efforts to undermine the Social Security system -- until now.

Continue Reading

Congress Passes Legislation to Avert Medicare Physician Cuts and Extend Programs

Congress has passed legislation that prevents a 25 percent reduction in payments to Medicare physicians from taking effect on January 1. The bill, known as the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010, also prevents further cuts to physician payments effectuated under the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted by Congress in 1997, and maintains current Medicare physician payment rates through December 31, 2011.

The Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act also extends a number of other programs that were set to expire on December 31, including the Qualified Individual (QI) Program and the Medicare therapy caps exception process. The legislation extends QI, a Medicare Savings Program (MSP) that helps pay Part B premiums for individuals with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the federal poverty level, until December 31, 2011. The legislation also extends for an additional year the Medicare therapy caps exception process, which allows consumers to apply for exceptions to the $1,860 coverage limit for combined speech and physical therapy services and the $1,860 coverage limit for occupational therapy services if such services are medically necessary.

Read the House Majority Leader’s press release.

Read Joe Baker’s statement on the passage of the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Package of 2010.

TIME GOES BY | Social Security: Doing It All Over Again

by Ronni Bennett

In December 2004, soon after George W. Bush had been re-elected president, I began what became a year-long series of posts about Social Security – 23 in all – covering its beginnings, its success over many decades and refuting the lies Bush and his minions told as they traveled the 50 states through 2005, intent on fulfilling Bush's campaign promise to privatize Social Security.

During those many months, Time Goes By readers responded magnificently to my repeated appeals and exhortations to sign petitions, write or telephone their representatives in Congress, and to post Social Security stories on their own blogs.

In the end, Bush lost and we elderbloggers played a small but important role in the nation's overwhelming rejection of privatization. It seemed to be over and done with, so much so that a couple of years ago, I removed the link in the right sidebar to that long series of posts.

It turns out that I was premature in doing so and now we need to do it all over again.

In the wake of our disastrous (and ongoing) recession, bank bailouts, housing crash and record deficits caused by unending wars and tax cuts for the rich and corporations, hardly a Republican alive in this midterm election campaign has not called for cuts to Social Security and/or its privatization. Some want to eliminate it altogether.

And it is not only Republicans. Some blue dog Democrats have joined the Republicans, and President Obama, although he has said he opposes privatization, seems waffle-y. As James Ridgeway at Unsilent Generation pointed out recently:

“It was Obama who set in motion the Fiscal Commission, supposedly to study the deficit but in fact, as just about everyone in Washington knows, to pare entitlements, cutting Medicare and Social Security.

“Originally, this commission was thought ready to propose lifting the limit at which one could draw Social Security from 62 to 67. Now scuttlebutt is that the entry age should be 70.
“Our supposedly 'socialist' president has placed the country’s premier social program in the hands of Alan Simpson, a Republican crank who views old people as the new welfare queens.”

William Greider, writing at LaborNotes last August, puts an even finer point on President Obama's involvement in trashing Social Security:

“Barack Obama is actively collaborating with this conservative ploy. He created a presidential commission on deficit reduction, stacked with conservative deficit hawks from both parties. They will not reveal their recommendations until after this fall’s election — too late for voters to push back.

“Obama is playing coy himself, but his aides have made clear his intentions. Social Security is the sacrificial lamb. It will be offered up to Republicans to get them to make a deal on taxes. The tax cuts for the wealthy enacted in the Bush era are set to expire, but Republicans and many Democrats are loath to let that happen.”

First they took everyone's savings – 401(k)s, IRAs and other investments – in the great crash of 2008.

Then they took away the jobs – or cut salaries in half.

They followed up by confiscating homes.

And now they want the only thing of value anyone has left: Social Security.

No matter what happens in next Tuesday's election, whacking Social Security will be a high priority with the new Congress come January. We must oppose it.

No proposal (yet) dares speak of any changes to current Social Security benefits or for those older than 55. But our younger brethren deserve protection and who better than we elders, who know how important that program is to getting by in old age.

Privatizers and benefit cutters (the latter includes raising the retirement age) argue that workers can just save more for their retirement. Really? How? They've lost everything (see above list) and (personal opinion only) inflation is soon going to eat away at what little they have left.

So this is number 1 in a new series on Social Security at Time Goes By. I'm asking you to start now to educate yourself and those two articles from Ridgeway and Greider linked above are a good start. I will be posting details with plenty of links in the weeks and months to come to point you to the information you will need.

Meanwhile, some others are mounting a campaign against the war on Social Security. At Campaign for America's Future, there is a chart of Washington politicians, organized by state, who promise – or not - to oppose benefit cuts. Check out your state.

The Campaign for America's Future has also prepared a Promise to Protect Social Security letter [pdf] that is easy to print, sign and send to your representative either my snailmail or it can be scanned and attached to an email.

Raul Grijalva, a three-term Democratic congressman from Arizona's 7th District who is in a tight race to retain his seat, has sent a letter [pdf] to President Obama opposing cuts to Social Security. Follow that link to see the names of other congress members who have signed.

However much the Republican rank-and-file and tea partiers are inclined to vote against their own best interests, most of the country supports Social Security as is. Greider again:

“Whatever Washington claims to believe, the people have their own consensus about Social Security, shared by both young and old, left and right. Americans are overwhelmingly opposed (85 percent in an AARP poll) to reducing Social Security benefits to address the deficit. A strong majority (65 percent) thinks Social Security benefits should now be increased, given everything else that has happened to people.”

Will you join all those other people and me in keeping up the pressure on Washington until we win again?
TIME GOES BY | Social Security: Doing It All Over Again

What If Health Care Reform Unravels? Critics, States, Republicans Oppose Law, Funding - AARP Bulletin

by: Patricia Barry

President Obama and Democratic leaders claimed victory in March when the new health care law was enacted. But the bitter partisan and ideological war is far from over, and ongoing battles threaten to undermine it.

Twenty-one states are challenging the law in court on constitutional grounds. Voters in at least three other states are weighing ballot initiatives opposing it. And "repeal" has become the rallying cry of Republicans going into the midterm elections. Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has made it clear that if his party takes control of the House in November, "repealing this bill has to be our number one priority."

The Republican leadership's new agenda, "A Pledge to America," announced yesterday, also calls for the law to be repealed and replaced with a scaled-down list of provisions. These include medical malpractice reform and expanding health savings accounts.

Where is the law vulnerable and could it be overturned? If so, what would be the consequences for the country and individual Americans?
Full Article

Related articles by Zemanta

• Could the Republicans Really Dismantle Health Care Reform? (health.change.org)
• Will health reform be repealed? (cnn.com)
• Republicans pledge to overturn health care reform (telegraph.co.uk)
• At Six Month Anniversary, Obama Touts Benefits Of Health Care Law (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Obama Makes Retail Sales Pitch to Defend Health-Care Overhaul (businessweek.com)

The Exchange - Putting Ideas to Work for Older Americans

Voice Your Ideas!

How would you improve aging services? The Older Americans Act is up for reauthorization in 2011. What should be in it?

Submit your ideas, big and small! Vote and comment on others’ ideas. Let’s identify the best ones, build consensus, then turn them into law.

Welcome, Age4Action! Please share your ideas in our Volunteering and Service and Workforce categories.
See more about The Exchange or browse the:

• Most Recent Ideas
• Top All-Time Ideas
• Ideas People Are Talking About

Or post your own!

TIME GOES BY | GRAY MATTERS: Social Security's Diamond Jubilee - By Saul Friedman

”We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life," said FDR that day. "But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against…poverty-ridden old age.”

I have not yet celebrated the Diamond Jubilee – the 75th anniversary last week of the adoption of Social Security. That’s because I suspect President Obama may consider agreeing to a cut in benefits for future retirees by raising the retirement age, which would be disastrous for them and for his presidency.

So far, he has not said whether he’s for or against the idea, advanced by Republicans and his fiscal commission. Once he was against it but now, as you’ll see, we cannot be sure.

In the days leading up to the August 14 anniversary, Obama said most of the right things. In his White House proclamation, Obama recalled that in the midst of the Great Depression,

“...the Social Security Act brought hope to some of our most vulnerable citizens, giving elderly Americans income security and bringing us closer to President Roosevelt’s vision of a nation free from want or fear.”

He added,

“My administration is committed to strengthening...and protecting Social Security as a reliable income source for seniors, workers who develop disabilities and dependents....Let us ensure we continue to preserve this program’s original purpose in the 21st century.”

He didn’t say how, but presidential proclamations are usually empty of substance. Obama followed with his weekly Saturday radio address in which he repeated his administration’s

“...obligation to keep that promise (of Social Security) for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans – today, tomorrow and forever.”

Then he vigorously promised to protect Social Security from

“...some Republican leaders in Congress who are pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.”

Privatization, allowing workers to create personal retirement accounts, like 401(k)s, he said, is

“...an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.”

That’s true enough, but to mix a metaphor, Obama was beating a dead straw man.

George W. Bush’s failed attempt to sell privatization in 2005, crippled his presidency. And as the Associated Press pointed out in reporting on the president’s speech,

“...most Republicans, in fact, are wary of touching that idea because Social Security is virtually sacrosanct to voters, particularly seniors.”

Indeed, the most prominent Republican favoring privatization of Social Security and Medicare, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has gotten little support from his Republican colleagues.

What was missing from Obama’s address was a single proposal to solve Social Security’s long-term shortfall which the program’s trustees estimate will come in 2037. That is when the program’s $2.6 trillion trust fund, which is held in treasury bonds, may run out. According to the trustees, a one percent raise each in the payroll taxes split between employee and employer enacted now would end the problem. Even now, the trust fund is continuing to grow with interest payments of more than $100 billion a year.

During his presidential campaign, Obama criticized Republican John McCain for favoring cuts in benefits. And Obama, who repeatedly has said that Social Security was not facing a “crisis,” offered a sensible, relatively painless proposal, which is now favored by most Social Security advocates.

Obama proposed raising the amount of one’s income that is subject to the payroll tax from the present $106,800 to $250,000. And in a gesture to the middle class, he proposed exempting from the tax the first $20,000 of a worker’s salary. (Some advocates would abolish the ceiling, which would go a long way towards putting Social Security in the black for the rest of this century.)

But Obama has not repeated that proposal nor has he said what he would oppose. Instead, he has created a commission to cut the deficit, a commission which is populated with right-wingers who are hostile to Social Security and believe, wrongly, that Social Security adds to the deficit.

Even before the commission went to work, members made cutting Social Security benefits one of their targets. One proposal that is most prominently supported by deficit hawks and Republican congressional leaders is raising the retirement age from 66 to 70.

As I’ve said, Obama has taken no position on this but he said in his radio speech that he’s

“...committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security.”

It would be easy for a Republican or the commission to claim that Social Security would be “strengthened’ by raising the retirement age and saving the benefits that now go to those under 70. Besides, when have Republicans worked with Obama, except to cut spending? Today’s extremist Republicans have never supported Social Security – probably because it’s a government program that works.

That’s why my alarm bells rang when a search in Google brought me a story in Slate by Peter Bray about the Obama campaign and Social Security, way back there on September 19, 2008. It said,

“This week the Obama campaign modified his position on a sensitive issue, Social Security. Compare the current ‘Seniors & Social Security’ page with the previous version.

“Now, tell me, why, oh why, would the Obama campaign delete the following sentence: ‘[Obama] does not believe it is fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age...The new page includes some reassuring language about ‘work[ing] with members of Congress from both parties to strengthen Social Security and prevent privatization while protecting middle class families from tax increases and benefit cuts.’

“Still, for those who pay attention to such things, what the new page leaves out is as important as what it puts in.”

As I said, I believe Obama has not taken a position on raising the retirement age; and I don’t know if he’s been asked. But such a proposal is anathema to most of Obama’s supporters. Ruben Burks [pdf], an official of the labor-backed Alliance of Retired Americans said,

“Can you imagine working until 70? In physically demanding jobs like construction, manufacturing and the service sector, I just don’t see how you can. And in a tough job market who would hire someone in their late 60s? Raising the retirement age is a benefit cut – plain and simple. We cannot allow it to be done.”

Social Security is keeping 20 million older and disabled Americans and over a million children out of poverty. Polls report that 77 percent of Americans an 68 percent of Republicans believe that Washington should find other ways, rather than Social Security, to reduce the deficit. And AARP’s survey shows strong majorities would prefer that their payroll taxes are raised rather than see benefits cuts.

Because Obama has yet to make his views known on raising the retirement age, AARP – the nation’s largest and most powerful organization of older Americans - has yet to take an official position on the issue which is an ominous sign. But a high-ranking source told me,

“In fact, we opposed raising the age to 70. The idea is tremendously unpopular and amounts to a serious, across-the-board benefit cut and is based on the fantasy that employers would hire people that age.

“Most have forgotten that normal retirement age goes to 67 under current law. Half of all people turning 62 claim Social Security today. Accepting a 25 percent benefit cut is mostly shortsighted in view of needs later on.”

The National Academy of Social Insurance says raising the retirement age would save about a third of the projected shortfall, but it suggests caution because low income and older workers in physically demanding jobs have shorter life spans than, say, white collar workers.

I will repeat what I asked in my column some weeks ago, how many men and women in their sixties will die while waiting for their first Social Security check.

Richard Eskow of ourfuture.org reported that while voters, Democrats and Republicans, oppose Social Security benefit cuts

"...not enough Democrats have promised they won't. Some, including the president, are avoiding the issue...The president spoke about Social Security again [on Wednesday] in Columbus, Ohio. While reassuring voters the program is 'not in crisis,' he repeated his statement that 'fairly modest changes' will stabilize it...voters will get the benefits they deserve' rather than the benefits as designed."

Might those changes mean raising the retirement age?

Liberal economist Dean Baker says that those who would slice benefits are saying, in effect,

“In the future, Social Security might have to cut benefits. To prevent these possible future benefits cuts, we must cut future benefits.”

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman charges that Republicans and the deficit commission say,

“...in order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts we must cut future benefits.”

Tell us this isn’t so, Mr. President.

Write to saulfriedman@comcast.net
TIME GOES BY | GRAY MATTERS: Social Security's Diamond Jubilee

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dave Johnson: Congress: Act Now to Preempt the Catfood Commission (huffingtonpost.com)
• Dean Baker: Social Security: The Republicans Are Right (huffingtonpost.com)
• Social Security protects citizens (timesunion.com)
• DNC's Woodhouse Follows President, Cites Need for Unmentioned "Tweaks" to Social Security (news.firedoglake.com)
• Alan Simpson: Social Security Is 'A Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits' (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama's Social Security Attacks: Killing Any Chance for Bipartisan Reform (time.com)
• Halperin: Obama fumbling Social Security reform by running Dem playbook (hotair.com)

Older Americans and People with Disabilities - Bridging the Disconnect. Information Bulletin # 320 (8/2010)

by Steve Gold

This Information Bulletin is an attempt to bridge and solidify advocates from two communities - older Americans and people with disabilities.  For many reasons, there has been a disconnect between them.

More than two years ago, we wrote "The Older Americans Act: Consumer Choice and Control over Long Term Care," (see February 9, 2007 Information Bulletin).  We reviewed how Congress' amendments to the Older Americans Act and its "Choices for Independence" began to provide services for people to remain in their homes, instead of going into nursing homes.  The Older Americans Act was for the first time really focused on community!

The OAA provided grants for States to develop a "single point of entry" for long-term care, so people would know what community-based services were available in order to avoid institutionalization.  This single point was through the "Aging and Disability Resource Centers" (ADRC).  It also adopted the "consumer model" so people could self-direct care and services.

The Older Americans Act is up for reauthorization in 2011. Yes folks, Congress will have to face whether or not the "Aging and Disability" centers will be refunded. This reauthorization will provide a forum and opportunity for these two communities to discuss how well they have worked together, how well the ADRCs are functioning, if they are serving both older Americans with disabilities and younger Americans with disabilities and what changes should occur.

There are a number of issues which we hope both communities understand and address:

1. Medicaid is the same funding stream for long-term community care and nursing homes for all people with disabilities, regardless of age.Cut-backs and reductions of Medicaid services impact every disabled person, and State legislatures' common attacks on services will hurt; people regardless of age.

2.Yes, these two communities do not agree on everything (e.g., assisted living, identifying oneself as having a disability), but there are unequivocally common interests. In an era of reductions and attacks by States on community-based services, it is critical to put aside differences and join to fight what the two communities have in common.

3. There really is power in numbers!  Can you imagine a State legislative hearing with twenty-five year old wheelchair uses holding hands with seventy-five year old wheelchair uses demanding their right to live in the community and not being dumped into nursing homes.

4.  How about next year, during the Congressional reauthorization hearings, joining forces? Tell Congress that all people with disabilities, regardless of age, want the right to receive services in their own homes.

5.  The increased Medicaid funds for Money Follows the Person grants must focus on getting anyone out of nursing homes who wants to live in the community - not just people with disabilities under 60 years old. Older Americans do not enter nursing homes because they want to; they do not have community-based services offered to them. If both communities combined their efforts, they could have a significant impact of enhancing waivers - especially in those 20 States that have not yet received MFP grants but probably will be applying for them very soon.

6. The Independent Living Centers serve many older Americans with disabilities. Yet, the AAAs and ILCs in most states keep each other at some distance. As the under 60s younger Americans with disabilities become the over 60s older Americans with disabilities, yes it really happens, the disability issues and culture will cross the age barrier. Let's hope that the people take the lead and make these organization really work together.
To not take the 2011 reauthorization as an opportunity to address these issues and to jointly work out strategies is perilous.

POWER concedes nothing without a struggle.

    Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects.

To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com or call 215-627-7100.

Draft 2010 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations

Image via Wikipedia

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests comments on its Draft 2010 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_ regpol_reports_congress/.

The Draft Report is divided into four chapters. Chapter I examines the benefits and costs of major Federal regulations issued in fiscal year 2009 and summarizes the benefits and costs of major regulations issued between October 1999 and September 2009. It also discusses regulatory impacts on State, local, and Tribal governments, small business, wages, and economic growth. Chapter II offers recommendations for regulatory reform. Chapter III provides an update on implementation of the Information Quality Act. Chapter IV summarizes agency compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.