Seniors, Guns and Money

OP-ED by Paul Krugman in the New York Times
This has to be one of the funniest political stories of recent weeks: On Tuesday, 42 freshmen Republican members of Congress sent a letter urging President Obama to stop Democrats from engaging in “Mediscare” tactics — that is, to stop saying that the Republican budget plan released early last month, which would end Medicare as we know it, is a plan to end Medicare as we know it.

Now, you may recall that the people who signed that letter got their current jobs largely by engaging in “Mediscare” tactics of their own. And bear in mind that what Democrats are saying now is entirely true, while what Republicans were saying last year was completely false. Death panels!
Well, it’s time, said the signatories, to “wipe the slate clean.” How very convenient — and how very pathetic.

Anyway, the truth is that older Americans really should fear Republican budget ideas — and not just because of that plan to dismantle Medicare. Given the realities of the federal budget, a party insisting that tax increases of any kind are off the table — as John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says they are — is, necessarily, a party demanding savage cuts in programs that serve older Americans.

To explain why, let me answer a rhetorical question posed by Professor John Taylor of Stanford University in a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal. He asked, “If government agencies and programs functioned with 19% to 20% of G.D.P. in 2007” — that is, just before the Great Recession — “why is it so hard for them to function with that percentage in 2021?”

More

Budget Chief Wants Plan with 50-50 Split Between Spending Cuts and Tax Hikes

By Alexander Bolton

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Tuesday presented a budget proposal to Senate Democrats that calls for an even balance — 50 percent to 50 percent — of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficit.
More

Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity

The conservative Heritage Foundation released a budget plan Tuesday that balances the federal budget far sooner than the House 2012 budget resolution, in part by cutting benefits for current seniors.

More

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.

President Announces Budget Alternative That Would Preserve Medicare

Yesterday, President Obama announced his administration’s framework for addressing the deficit as an alternative to the current proposal under consideration in the House of Representatives proposed by Budget Committee Chairman Representative Paul Ryan, which would end the current Medicare program replacing it with a voucher system. Rather than saving the government money by shifting large out of pocket costs to Medicare consumers as is the case under voucher proposals, the Administration’s plan attempts to slow the growth of Medicare spending, addressing the root cause of the high costs in Medicare − the growth in health care sector spending overall.

Under the framework outlined by the President, Medicare savings would be achieved through strengthening some of the changes to payment and delivery system reforms included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). For example, the President’s plan increases the authority of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the body designed to impose policies to slow the growth of Medicare spending, such as reductions in provider payment rates. However, the IPAB is prohibited from proposing programs that would increase cost-sharing for Medicare consumers. Under current law IPAB action is triggered if Medicare spending exceeds GDP plus one percent. Under the proposal released yesterday the trigger would be set at GDP plus 0.5 percent. Also, the framework re info rces many of the delivery system reforms proposed in the ACA that aim to create greater efficiency in health care through improved quality, such as lowering the rate of avoidable hospital readmissions.

In addition, the plan would quicken the pace at which generic drugs enter the market as well as require rebates to Medicare from drug manufacturers for drugs provided under the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit. Moreover, the proposal fully pays for a permanent fix to the Sustainable Growth Rate ( SGR ) provider payment formula.

Take action to prevent cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.


Read Medicare Rights Center President Joe Baker’s statement on the President’s framework.


Read the fact sheet on President Obama’s framework for the budget.


Watch the President’s speech on the framework for the budget.

Proposed Medicaid Cuts Could Be Devastating to Utah

By PATTY HENETZ-The Salt Lake Tribune

Advocates for elders and low-income residents in Utah see Republican plans for cutting Medicare and Medicaid costs as an unfair approach that could mean the loss of billions of dollars to Utah.

The proposal released last week by House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., would repeal key provisions in the year-old Affordable Care Act, privatize Medicare and cut $1 trillion from Medicaid funding for states. The states would get set amounts, which would cap spending rather than adjusting it for changing needs and new enrollees. Congress is expected to vote on the proposal Friday.

The plan could translate to a $554 million cut in federal Medicaid supports to the Beehive State, say officials with the Utah Health Policy Project, who used reports by the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for their own state-level study.

UHPP says losses over a 10-year period could include:

• $3.2 billion in business activity, as seniors and others spend more on care and less on other goods and services produced in the state;

• 30,369 in related jobs;

• $1.1 billion in worker earnings associated with those job losses.

The cuts could also mean nearly 76,000 more people will be uninsured in Utah, mostly low-income children, seniors and people with disabilities, who together make up 73 percent of the state’s Medicaid recipients.

Story Continues

Elders and Obama's Speech

by Ronni Bennett

Did you watch President Obama's speech yesterday afternoon? Whew! It was better than I feared it would be. Kinda busy today (Wednesday) so mostly I'll stick to the major points affecting elders.

If you will recall, Paul Ryan's deficit reduction plan, widely praised by Republicans, would turn Medicare into a voucher program which, as the president said, “would end Medicare as we know it.”

“It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today,” said Obama. “It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own...”

“They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.” [emphasis is mine]

Write that down, everyone. Paste it on your desk and as the debate on the budget continues in Washington, let's not let him back down.

One of the biggest budget busters in Medicare is the prescription drug plan. Rammed through Congress during the Bush II administration by a Louisiana legislator, Billy Tauzin, who almost immediately left Congress for a $2 million per year job as head of the pharmaceutical industry lobby, the bill specifically denies Medicare the right to negotiate drug prices as the Veterans Administration does.

Yesterday, Obama sounded like he wants to rescind this horrendously expensive giveaway to big pharma:

“We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market.”

Medicare is the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the country and allowing negotiation would go a long way toward reducing Medicare costs. I'm pretty sure the board rooms of drug companies are going ballistic this morning while planning their assault on Congress members to reject this idea.

Referring to Medicare and Medicaid, Obama said he would reform these programs, “but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.”

”That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security,” he continued. “While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older...

“[B]oth parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”

Okay, he rejected privatization of Social Security. That's good. He wants to protect current beneficiaries and not “slash” benefits for younger people. That's sort of good. Unfortunately, he left the door wide open for some kind of cuts for people younger than 55, for smaller cost-of-living adjustments and made no reference to maintaining the current retirement age.

And there was no mention, either, of raising the salary cap which, if it were to be eliminated, would fix almost all the Social Security shortfall for the next 75 years. So, there are still some red flags to Obama's commitment that we need to keep our eyes on.

Those are the big points relating to elders. I like it when Obama gets all warm and gooey about what America is (or should be), as in this passage of his speech:

”The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share.

“We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare.

“We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

“This is who we are. This is the America I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit investments in our people and our country. To meet our fiscal challenge, we will need to make reforms.

“We will all need to make sacrifices. But we do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in. And as long as I’m President, we won’t.”

Nevertheless, I was struck by the president's offhand acknowledgment of a sad truth about you and me and everyone who is not rich. While enumerating the many things wrong with the Ryan budget proposal, Obama said,

“There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. [emphasis is mine]

That's the president saying out loud that if you're not rich, you don't have a say in government which implies that any benefits for the middle class and poor are left to the largesse of the corporate controlled government. Oy vey. What an admission.

If you missed the speech, the full text is here.

TIME GOES BY | The Fight of Our Lifetimes

by Ronni Bennett

After last week's budget battle, the lines are drawn. Two factions are in control of the debate for the future of the United States:

• The religious zealots who intend to make their ignorance the law of the land
• The corporatocracy who intend to bleed every last dollar from the rest of us for their personal use

Aside from a small number of sane pundits dismissed by the other two groups as leftwing or socialists (horrors!) and a few Congress members (of whom only Bernie Sanders and Harry Reid regularly speak up) hardly anyone, including President Obama, speaks for the people.

The budget debate last week, devolving into an abortion argument over funding of Planned Parenthood, got so stupid I wanted to fire everyone. Crazy, ignorant legislators in Congress apparently never heard of the Hyde Amendment which has banned federal funding of abortions since 1976.

Having defeated the president (who weirdly claimed a win), the zealots were all over the media telling us what we are in store for. Following on Senator Paul Ryan's draconian and fraudulent deficit reduction plan, they made no secret of what's next.

Here is House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) talking on Fox News Sunday about a proposed $750 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (transcript via ThinkProgress – my emphasis):

CANTOR: We are in a situation where we have a safety net in place in this country for people who frankly don’t need one. We have to focus on making sure we have a safety net for those who need it.

WALLACE: The Medicaid people — you’re going to cut that by $750 billion.

CANTOR: The Medicaid reductions are off the baseline. So what we’re saying is allow states to have the flexibility to deal with their populations, their indigent populations and the healthcare needs the way they know how to deal with them. Not to impose some mandate from a bureaucrat in Washington.

WALLACE: But you are giving them less money to do it.

CANTOR: In terms of the baseline, that is correct…What we’re saying is there is so much imposition of a mandate that doesn’t relate to the actual quality of care. We believe if you put in place the mechanism that allow for personal choice as far as Medicare is concerned, as well as the programs in Medicaid, that we can actually get to a better resolve and do what most Americans are learning how to do, which is to do more with less.

”Most Americans.” Except for rich people, of course. And don't forget that Social Security is in their sights too. Eric Cantor, again, in March:

“If we want America to be what WE want America to be”?

Which “we” would that be? I sure don't want the America he describes.

It's not just Republicans who are pushing for an increased transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class.

David Plouffe, a White House senior adviser, also made the chat show rounds (emphasis mine):

"'We can't take a machete,' Plouffe said on ABC's This Week. 'We have to take a scalpel, and we're going to have to cut, we're going to have to look carefully.'”


[According to AP, Plouffe also] “said Obama was committed to finding ways for the nation to spend within its means, including reducing Medicare and Medicaid, the government's chief health care programs for seniors and the poor.”

Why in the world are the Democrats – the White House in particular – selling out elders to the zealots and corporations? Perhaps they are counting on support in the 2012 election from the growing number of old Americans who increasingly vote against their own and their offsprings' interest.

Here is another possible reason: The current New York magazine has a graphic showing the previous employment of 14 high-ranking White House advisers. Seven of them, half, are former executives of Goldman Sachs. The rest were hired from Lehman, Citi, UBS, Hartford Financial and JPMorganChase.

These are the people who already stole an estimated $2 trillion in life savings from the people of the United States, an additional $3 trillion in home values through fraudulent mortgage practices, have sent millions of jobs overseas and who pay lower tax rates than you and I.

Now that corporations can contribute unlimited, unreported money to candidates, do you really expect them NOT to do everything else in their vast power to grab all the money that now goes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security?

With a list like these 14 talking to the President Obama every day, do you really expect him NOT to bow to their demands?

Tomorrow, he will deliver that speech about deficit reduction. I am frightened for us and for all future elders. Obama's past record is not good. He has capitulated to the zealots and corporatocracy at every opportunity and although I hope David Plouffe will be proved wrong, I am not expecting that to be so.

It looks like we are in for the fight of our lifetimes. I don't know if we can win, but there is no choice except to try.

NCPSSM: Analysis of the Fiscal Commission Proposal

On December 1, 2010, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a report containing a set of recommendations for addressing the nation’s fiscal crisis. Their proposed changes to Social Security are especially troublesome, as they represent a completely unbalanced approach to changing Social Security. An overwhelming majority of the adjustments to the program come in the form of benefit cuts which will hurt generations of Americans, something repeated polls have shown the American people do not support.

The link below provides an analyst of the changes and their impact on beneficiaries.

Full Analysis

Spring News from Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement

Articles:

The National Deficit and the Debt? Why is Social Security Part of the Debate?

Webinar: Taking the Mystery Out of Retirement Planning-April

Details at Spring News from Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement

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

stevegoldada: Attacking Medicaid - Myths and Some Realities.

By Steve Gold 

Aldttacking Medicaid - Myths and Some Realities. Information Bulletin # 320 (4/2011)

There have been a lot of articles and speeches attacking Medicaid: “GOP Governors Seek Leeway to Cut Medicaid,” “Fiscal Health Hinges on Containing Costs of Care.”

Now comes Rep. Ron Paul plan to change Medicaid.....

From article to article to political speech, the drum beat is the same: “Block Grant” Medicaid so states can set their own rules and achieve, hear the drum roll, “flexibility.”

Block grants are allocate federal funds based on the total number of people or the number of low-income people, or some other criteria. Under block grants, States would decide who will be eligible and which “medically necessary” conditions to cover. States would receive a dollar grant to spend as they wish. If you think politicians, lobbyists, and pressure groups are active now, just wait if there are block grants and no federal standards or requirements.

There are a number of reasons for the current activity.

First and probably the most important reason, this is a backdoor attack against the 2010 Health Care Reform Act. Last year, Congress, for the first time in our history, enacted that all low-income people - below 133% of the poverty level - will be eligible for Medicaid in 2014. That’s an addition 16 million low-income Americans.

In the past, Medicaid eligibility was federally based primarily on categories, so that two people with the same income but different sources of income were treated differently. The Health Care Reform Act ensures that two people in the same or different states with the same income and same impairments will not be treated differently.

When you hear Medicaid Block Grants, think “eligibility.” As David Wessel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “The argument is that with ‘flexibility,’ states can do more with less. But the biggest ‘flexibility’ that states now lack - given that many already rely heavily on managed care and low provider fees - is the authority to reduce the rolls. That leaves them to do less with less.”

What’s fascinating about this conservative attack is that they do not articulate who currently on Medicaid does not need or does not “deserve” to receive health care. What’s at stake is the answer to the question “If a low-income American needs health care, should they receive it?”

Second, States presently have a lot of authority to control their Medicaid costs. Medicaid costs can be contained under the present system, but it does take some political backbone. Despite the drum roll of “out of control” Medicaid costs, these costs can be and have been in some instances controlled. For example, between 2000 and 2005, Medicaid reimbursements for drugs increased by 95.9%. To counter that, States took control and by 2009, reduced Medicaid’s drugs expenditures by 44%.

Another example of States controlling Medicaid costs should focus on why 17.4% of all Medicaid nationally in FY 2009 went to keep people with disabilities institutionalized. States control this. Yes, States throughout the country spent more on nursing homes and institutions for persons with development disabilities than they spent on in-patient hospitalization and drugs! The federal government did not make States do this. Medicaid did not make the States do this! Moreover, many of these institutions provide at most custodial care; they’re the 21st century’s poorhouses and homeless shelters paid for by Medicaid.

Again, as David Wessel wrote in another column, regarding “often overlooked facts.... Medicaid pays 43% of America’s long-term care bill, including bills for about 60% of nursing-home residents.” He correctly points out that right now, without any changes in Medicaid, States could “keep the elderly and disabled out of nursing homes by helping them pay for home or community-based care... It’s cheaper and often preferred by the individual. That push has been under way for years. It’s now at risk as states scramble to save money, and eye cuts to home and community-based care.”

Cheaper, preferred? Why is it not happening? States control this and have decided to buckle under to the nursing home lobby! Ask your State’s nursing home lobby how much they contributed to your Governor’s campaign. It’s not the present Medicaid statute.

Third, presently States pay with State general revenue funds at most 50% of Medicaid costs, and the federal government matches States expenditures. About 36 states receive more than 50% from the federal government depending on the state’s per capita income. The poorer the State the more federal match. Don’t be fooled that the push for “Block Grants” is to help States financial situation. The feds pay an enormous share of Medicaid.

Right now, the Medicaid standard is that only “medically necessary” services and treatment are required. Let the Block Grant proponents identify and list which specific “medically necessary” services should not be paid for.

It’s critical that advocates for disabled older and younger Americans get into the fray. Our lives and the lives of brothers, sisters, neighbors, friends and all low-income people depend on it.

stevegoldada: Attacking Medicaid - Myths and Some Realities.

Ryan Budget Pulls the Rug Out from Under Seniors, People with Disabilities, and Struggling Families

Community Catalyst Press Release
Contact: Kathy Melley  Office: 617/275-2861  Mobile: 617/791-0708  kmelley@communitycatalyst.org

Joint Statement of Robert Restuccia, Executive Director, Community Catalyst, and Rev. Heyward Wiggins, Co-Chair PICO National Network Steering Committee, on the House Republican budget plan


(BOSTON AND WASHINGTON, DC) - "The House Republican 2012 budget plan released today is a blueprint for disaster. Rather than prioritizing cuts, it seeks to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it - seniors, people with disabilities and struggling families - while asking too little of those who can most afford to sacrifice. Today Medicare and Medicaid work in tandem to help people stay healthy as they age, become disabled, or face hard times. Block grants, privatization and vouchers would take away the health care security that all Americans have relied on since 1965.

"As consumer and faith-based organizations representing millions of American families, we find it abhorrent that people would be made to suffer needlessly or die prematurely because they could not afford to get the care they need. The House plan to gut Medicaid and Medicare will roll back sixty years of social progress in the United States and decimate programs that are a critical part of the safety-net and the backbone of our health care system.

"Block granting Medicaid shifts costs to already financially overburdened states during this recession leads to dramatic cuts in benefits and eligibility for seniors, people with disabilities, children, pregnant women, and working parents, just when people need them most. Families that rely on Medicaid to cover long-term or nursing home care could face enormous financial strain in trying to care for loved ones when their health care costs are no longer picked up by Medicaid.

"Privatizing Medicare is a hand-out to insurance companies, driving up deductibles and co-payments for seniors on Medicare today, and doing nothing to contain health care costs. By 2021, Medicare as we know it would be gone, replaced by a voucher program that would require seniors to buy private insurance. Vouchers lead to rationed health care. As health care costs rise, vouchers would be too small to buy adequate coverage. Many seniors would find they couldn't afford coverage at all and end up uninsured.

"Instead of taking an ax to programs that provide health and economic security to millions of people, federal policy makers should build on the cost containment framework that is already part of the Affordable Care Act and focus on reducing excessive insurance premiums, giving people the care they need to stay out of hospitals and nursing homes, and investing in public health measures to reduce heart disease, diabetes and other chronic illnesses that lead to higher health care costs.

"The savings produced by the House plan come at a great human cost and take our health care system in the wrong direction. We ask Members of Congress to reject this radical proposal to take Medicaid and Medicare away from those who need it most."
###

About Community Catalyst

Community Catalyst is a national non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to quality affordable health care for all. Since 1997, Community Catalyst has been working to build the consumer and community leadership required to transform the American health system. With the belief that this transformation will happen when consumers are fully engaged and have an organized voice, Community Catalyst works in partnership with national, state and local consumer organizations, policymakers, and foundations, providing leadership and support to change the health care system so it serves everyone - especially vulnerable members of society. For more information, visit www.communitycatalyst.org.

PICO National Network is a national network of faith-based community organizations working to expand health care coverage and improve communities in 17 states. www.piconetwork.org

In Republicans' 2012 Budget Plan, Rep. Ryan Gives Social Security a Pass - TheHill.com

Image via Wikipedia
By Erik Wasson

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will largely give Social Security a pass in his highly anticipated budget while proposing a significant overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid, according to sources briefed on the plan.

The 2012 budget resolution, which committee Republicans are still finalizing, is scheduled to be unveiled on Tuesday. It will not back specific benefit cuts to Social Security or suggest raising the retirement age, sources said.

Instead, it will lay out the problems with the program and suggest authorizing committees tackle the specifics. It also will propose “trigger” thresholds for Social Security that, once reached, would ask the president to propose a way to fix the program.

Ryan is also not planning to include a proposal that would allow recipients to invest their Social Security payroll taxes, something Democrats have attacked as a “privatization” of Social Security. Such attacks doomed a 2005 effort by then-President George W. Bush to reform the system.
More

TIME GOES BY | 2012 Social Security Benefit

by Ronni Bennett

In the past few days, an AP story has been circulating among newspapers reporting that in 2012 there will be a small cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to Social Security benefits. But the kicker is that an increase in the Medicare Part B premium will probably be larger.

I doubt there is a TGB reader alive who does not know the COLA has not increased for the past two years. The reason given is that there was no inflation during 2009 and 2010. You and I know better, but that's how it goes.

Currently, the average Social Security benefit is $1,077. The Medicare Part B premium for about 75 percent of beneficiaries (people whose incomes are less than $85,000) $96.40, is deducted leaving an average payment of $980.60.

So far this year there has been a small uptick in inflation which, the Social Security trustees project, will result in a 1.2 percent COLA for 2012. Assuming inflation comes in at the trustees' guess, that average benefit would increase to $1090 ($13.00 per month or $156 for the year).

But wait. Don't start planning a European vacation with it yet.

The Medicare Part B premium for 2012 will be $113.80 – an increase of $17.40 per month, reducing the 2012 Social Security average benefit to $976.20. $4.40 less than the current average.

Fortunately, there is a “hold harmless” clause that prevents Medicare premium increases from reducing the Social Security benefit, so the 2012 average payment would remain at $980.60.

So much for a cost-of-living increase next year. That should please the Republicans who think elders are living too high on the hog sucking on what Alan Simpson calls the “government tit.”

In an attempt to forestall cuts to Social Security in Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), on 15 March, introduced S.582 – The Social Security Protection Act of 2011.

In brief, the bill (full text here) would make it out of order in both the Senate and House of Representatives to consider any legislation that

• increases the retirement age or the early retirement age for individuals receiving benefits under title II (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act on or after the enactment of this Act;

• reduces cost-of-living increases for them;

• reduces benefit payment amounts for them; or

• creates private retirement accounts for any of the OSADI benefits they receive. Makes waiver or suspension of this Act out of order in the House or Senate.

According to opencongress.org, as of yesterday, there has been zero news coverage of this bill. There are nine co-sponsors, all Democrats, of course:

Senator Daniel Akaka [D, HI]
Senator. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Senator Richard Blumenthal [D, CT]
Senator Barbara Boxer [D, CA]
Senator Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Senator Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ]
Senator Barbara Mikulski [D, MD]
Senator Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI]
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI]

You need to call your senators today to tell them to vote for this bill. Dave Johnson, writing at Campaign For America's Future, gives simple instructions:

“Call your Senators RIGHT NOW at 1-866-251-4044. You’ll be given a choice of which of your state’s two senators to be connected with. Call BOTH if you have the time. It only takes a minute each. Tell the person who answers the phone:

• I am a voter/constituent living in [your state]. I am calling to tell the Senator:

• I oppose all cuts to Social Security and

• I urge them to vote yes on the The Social Security Protection Act of 2011. “Please take the time for this very important effort today. This is for all of us who depend on Social Security. Call today: 1-866-251-4044.”

On 16 March, Representative Anthony Wiener introduced the same bill in the House, H.R.1118. Co-sponsors are:

Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
Rep. Frederica Wilson [D, FL-17]

Undoubtedly you are getting tired of hearing about all this from me, but we must remain alert and do everything we can to preserve Social Security not just for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren and beyond.

It may not seem right that a cost-of-living adjustment disappears into Medicare and then some, but without Social Security, many elders would have no income and destroying the program is high on the Republican agenda. Please pick up that phone again.

TIME GOES BY | 2012 Social Security Benefit

GOP House Leader Wishes for an America without Social Security | Entitled to Know

by NCPSSM
Every once in awhile…and honestly, it doesn’t happen that often here in Washington…a politician says exactly what he thinks. He/she steps away from the party talking points and poll-tested language which purposefully confuses more than clarifies. We had one of those moments this week, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor made it clear that the America he dreams of would abolish Social Security and Medicare. Here’s what he told the right wing Hoover Institution, as reported by NPR:

“So we’ve got to protect today’s seniors. But for the rest of us? For – you know, listen. We’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.” Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

It’s not really news that GOP leaders are really less interested in “reforming” Social Security and Medicare than eliminating them; however, politically, it’s certainly unusual for it to be verbalized out loud. The preferred terms of art for those who share Majority Leader Cantor’s views are “reform”, “modernize” and “protect for future generations”. Their cynical political strategy created and articulated as far back as the last major Social Security reforms in the early 80’s, was to ensure current day beneficiaries that they would be protected (the theory being seniors only care about themselves) and deliver the death blows to these programs to future generations who won’t really know what they’re missing –until it’s too late.
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

Social Security and Medicare: Deficit Myths Information Bulletin # 328 (3/2011)

by Steve Gold

Challenging Social Security and Medicare's fiscal soundness has been a regular activity of conservatives in this country since the 1950s. The current attack is a virtual replay of 1983, with a few new twists. Each time they attack, the unstated but likely intentional consequences are to instill fear in older and disabled Americans, and people who will be retiring in the future. Advocates for Older and Disabled Americans must take the offense and fight back.

One of the new twists is to repeat the mantra that Social Security and Medicare are "Entitlements." This short-hand label suggests the programs are simply government largesse, "welfare," and charity. In our current climate, such branding supports reducing or even eliminating these programs.

But neither Social Security retirement/disability nor Medicare is an "Entitlement." Both were enacted as insurance programs. Payments come out of our wages pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act's FICA, and are deposited in four separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance; Disability Insurance; Hospital Insurance (Part A of Medicare); and Supplementary Medical Insurance (Part B).

Throughout out working lives, we pay insurance payments or "premiums" (a percent of our earnings) into these government sponsored insurance trust funds so that when we no longer have earnings, due to retirement or disability, we will receive these insurance benefits - the same way any private insurance program is supposed to work.

Folks, let's wake up. It's our insurance benefits on the chopping block; it's our money. Don't buy into the politico-hysterical rhetoric.

A second twist alleges that these programs are in deep financial trouble and are the cause of our national deficits. One of the biggest difficulties we face is to know which "facts" are accurate and which are thrown out to frighten us.

The 2010 actuarial annual report of the Trustees' of Social Security and Medicare shows assets of $2,540.3 billion in Social Security and $380.8 billion in Medicare, Part A and B. The Trustees report that "the outlook for Medicare has improved substantially." Part A "is now expected to remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year." Part B's program costs are "down 23 percent relative to costs projected" earlier.

Due to the current deep recession, the Trustees point out that short-term outlook for Social Security is not good. Social Security expenditures will exceed receipts this year for the first time since 1983. Even so, the Trustees expect the deficits to "shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy."

What if the economy does not improve as much as the Trustees assume? Rather than unsupported fear mongering, advocates must initiate a public discussion regarding how we might address this problem.

Easy and relatively painless remedies exist to address future Social Security concerns. For example, presently we pay Medicare payroll taxes (1.4%) on our total earnings, but Social Security payroll taxes are do not apply to earnings above $108,800.

Why should earnings above $108,800 not be subject to Social Security payments? Why should people who earn less pay on their entire earnings but people who earn more do not? Raising the Social Security's taxable amount of earnings to include all of our earnings the same as Medicare does will have no impact on the rate withheld, presently 6.5%, but will ensure that we all pay our fair share.

A variant of this proposal came from The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in December 2010 which recommended we pay different Social Security payment rates on all of our income depending on the earnings. The Commission estimated their recommended changes would close nearly half of any shortfalls over the next 75 years.

An honest public discourse without rhetoric and myths might lead to proposals that really address how to continue and improve these programs. In 1983, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head a commission which proposed numerous changes that resulted in nearly 30 years of security. Hmmm. Reagan and Greenspan????

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.

Information Bulletins are also be posted on my blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/

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

Social Security Splinters Democrats in Debate Over Reining in Budget Deficits - The Washington Post

By Lori Montgomery

With momentum building to rein in record budget deficits, Democrats are sharply divided over whether to tackle popular but increasingly expensive safety-net programs for the elderly, particularly Social Security.

A growing number of Democratic lawmakers say they are willing to consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for wealthier seniors as part of a compromise with Republicans to cut spending on the programs and stabilize them for future generations.

But senior lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) are lining up against them, arguing that tampering with Social Security would harm the elderly — as well as the political fortunes of Democrats hoping to maintain control of the White House and the Senate in 2012.

The dispute, long simmering behind the scenes, is poised to erupt into public view. Reid has scheduled a rally Monday on Capitol Hill to show “support for Social Security and opposition to cuts in benefits,” according to an e-mail sent to liberal activists. And House Democrats this week signaled their intention to use Social Security as a cudgel in next year’s elections by launching an ad campaign accusing 10 GOP lawmakers in swing districts of plotting to cut the program.

Meanwhile, Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, plans to release a memo Friday arguing that the deficit has emerged as an uncommonly powerful political issue and that 2012 voters will reward the party that takes bold action to restrain government spending — including overhauling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
More

Social Security’s Possible Fate: Done in By Its Friends - The Washington Post

By Charles Blahous

Young people often ask me whether Social Security will be there for them. My answer has traditionally been: Yes, it will be there. It will probably pay less than it is currently promising you. You should not expect a generous return on your contributions. You may have to pay more in payroll taxes. But the basic structure of the program is likely to remain intact.

Recent events require a reassessment of this answer. Chances are now markedly increasing that Social Security will eventually cease to operate as the self-financed, earned-benefit system that Americans have long known it to be.

Many recent statements by public officials express a mind-set in which fiscal repairs to Social Security might be deferred for years. Administration officials play down the urgency of action by pointing to still-growing balances in the program’s trust fund. A recent Senate bill would erect steep procedural barriers against many measures to improve system finances. Even the Senate majority leader recently asserted that Social Security could be safely left alone until “two decades from now.”

If these statements are indicative of near-term policies, Social Security is in very deep trouble.
More