Our Presidential Debate Scorecard Shows Viewers Were the Real Losers
Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO. Originally appeared on Huffington Post.
Presidential debates have long been more about style than substance but this week’s debate has taken us into new territory. Once the event ended and each answer had been parsed and re-parsed by the media and our national punditry class, it’s clear that American voters have been left with the largest collection of misrepresentations, half-truths and political fairy tales in Presidential debate history. This is especially true when you consider the comments and promises made about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. From President Obama’s still inscrutable comment about Social Security to Mitt Romney’s demonstrably false claims about Medicare, it’s no wonder America’s seniors and their families are left scratching their heads.
49 million Americans depend on Medicare, more than 60 million on Medicaid and 55 million on Social Security. These programs touch the lives of virtually every American family in every community in our nation and are now at the center of a campaign to cut benefits as part of a so-called deficit “grand bargain”. Surely, Americans deserve the full truth about what our Presidential candidates plan for these programs’ futures rather than headlines like these: “Romney Wins on Style, Obama Wins on Facts”, “Mostly Fiction”, “Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes”, “Romney Goes on Offense, Pays For It in First Wave of Fact-Checks” and “Obama’s Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled”.
Here are worst of the myths presented in this first Presidential debate:
Health care reform cuts $716 billion from Medicare.
This is poll-tested rhetoric seen in campaigns nationwide designed to trick seniors into believing their benefits have been cut. Truth is, not one penny of Medicare benefits was cut in the Affordable Care Act. In fact, that money is being used to improve health care and save money for Medicare beneficiaries. These benefits include preventive screenings and services, annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans with no out-of-pocket costs, as well as discounts on prescription drugs in the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut hole” which will be closed by 2020. Medicare’s solvency has been extended by eight years and in 2012, for the first time ever, the Part B deductible decreased from $162 to $140 per year.
Romney also did not mention that the GOP/Ryan budget he supports also includes these Medicare cuts yet this GOP plan does not reinvest one penny back into the program. Instead, they use that money to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and deficit reduction
Don’t Worry Seniors, My Plan Won’t Impact You.
Not only does this cynical pandering to seniors not work—older Americans know their children and grandchildren will need these programs too– it’s also wrong. Governor Romney promised to repeal “Obamacare” on day one. That means on the first day of his administration seniors would lose free preventive benefits and annual wellness exams, prescription drug and premium costs will increase by hundreds of dollars per year, the Part D donut hole returns, private insurance companies get their taxpayer handouts back, and Medicare would be bankrupt by the end of a Romney first term.
Seniors would also see increased long-term care costs, including increased costs for nursing home care, because of cuts to Medicaid. The Romney/Ryan proposed Medicaid cuts mean a loss of over $2,500 annually for seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
The Romney/Ryan “CouponCare” plan won’t end traditional Medicare because people can choose Medicare as an option.
Nonsense. Chairman Ryan’s plan sets up a scenario that will put Medicare into a death spiral. This plan calls for private plans to provide benefits that are at least “actuarially equivalent” to the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare, which gives private insurance companies the ability to manipulate their plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors. This would leave traditional Medicare with older and sicker beneficiaries whose higher health costs could lead to higher premiums that people would be unable or unwilling to pay, resulting in a death spiral for traditional Medicare. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ (CBPP) reports, “over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result.”
Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand that it’s politically impossible to pass legislation ending traditional Medicare. However, their “CouponCare” plan is a means to that end by putting traditional Medicare into a fiscally untenable position. Seniors will end up going back in time, to the days before Medicare, where they will once again be at the mercy of private insurance companies. It also makes it harder for seniors to choose their own doctor. Giving them a voucher that loses value over time means older Americans will pay more for less while private insurance companies reap the gains.
This election will likely determine the future of America’s most successful anti-poverty and retirement security programs. Few American families will remain untouched by the decisions the next President and Congress will soon make. It’s really not too much to ask that our candidates ditch the political propaganda and mistruths and start giving it to us straight. The Vice Presidential debate on October 11th is a good place to start.
This Election – A Referendum on Social Security & Medicare
Every once in awhile we read an article that’s so spot-on it’s impossible to pick just one excerpt to share with our readers. Yesterday’s opinion piece by the New York Times’ Paul Krugman is just that type of piece. It’s that good and our “Networthy Award” winner this week.
September 30, 2012
The Real Referendum
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Republicans came into this campaign believing that it would be a referendum on President Obama, and that still-high unemployment would hand them victory on a silver platter. But given the usual caveats — a month can be a long time in politics, it’s not over until the votes are actually counted, and so on — it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.
Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?
If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?
I ask that question because we already know what Mr. Obama will face if re-elected: a clamor from Beltway insiders demanding that he immediately return to his failed political strategy of 2011, in which he made a Grand Bargain over the budget deficit his overriding priority. Now is the time, he’ll be told, to fix America’s entitlement problem once and for all. There will be calls — as there were at the time of the Democratic National Convention — for him to officially endorse Simpson-Bowles, the budget proposal issued by the co-chairmen of his deficit commission (although never accepted by the commission as a whole).
And Mr. Obama should just say no, for three reasons.
First, despite years of dire warnings from people like, well, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, we are not facing any kind of fiscal crisis. Indeed, U.S. borrowing costs are at historic lows, with investors actually willing to pay the government for the privilege of owning inflation-protected bonds. So reducing the budget deficit just isn’t the top priority for America at the moment; creating jobs is. For now, the administration’s political capital should be devoted to passing something like last year’s American Jobs Act and providing effective mortgage debt relief.
Second, contrary to Beltway conventional wisdom, America does not have an “entitlements problem.” Mainly, it has a health cost problem, private as well as public, which must be addressed (and which the Affordable Care Act at least starts to address). It’s true that there’s also, even aside from health care, a gap between the services we’re promising and the taxes we’re collecting — but to call that gap an “entitlements” issue is already to accept the very right-wing frame that voters appear to be in the process of rejecting.
Finally, despite the bizarre reverence it inspires in Beltway insiders — the same people, by the way, who assured us that Paul Ryan was a brave truth-teller — the fact is that Simpson-Bowles is a really bad plan, one that would undermine some key pieces of our safety net. And if a re-elected president were to endorse it, he would be betraying the trust of the voters who returned him to office.
Consider, in particular, the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age, supposedly to reflect rising life expectancy. This is an idea Washington loves — but it’s also totally at odds with the reality of an America in which rising inequality is reflected not just in the quality of life but in its duration. For while average life expectancy has indeed risen, that increase is confined to the relatively well-off and well-educated — the very people who need Social Security least. Meanwhile, life expectancy is actually falling for a substantial part of the nation.
Now, there’s no mystery about why Simpson-Bowles looks the way it does. It was put together in a political environment in which progressives, and even supporters of the safety net as we know it, were very much on the defensive — an environment in which conservatives were presumed to be in the ascendant, and in which bipartisanship was effectively defined as the effort to broker deals between the center-right and the hard right.
Barring an upset, however, that environment will come to an end on Nov. 6. This election is, as I said, shaping up as a referendum on our social insurance system, and it looks as if Mr. Obama will emerge with a clear mandate for preserving and extending that system. It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
**The only thing we’d add to this wonderful piece is that this “we must cut benefits” environment didn’t happen organically. It’s the product of a billion dollar campaign funded by former Nixon Commerce Secretary, multi-billionaire, and anti-entitlement scold Pete Peterson, to persuade Washington that we can’t afford America’s safety net. This campaign is years in the making and its funding has branched out to virtually every one of the so-called “non-partisan” groups who’ve dutifully written reports calling for benefit cuts, the media including the Washington Post, and has even provided staff for the Fiscal Commission. In fact, the first question any journalist or reader of one of these reports should be asking is…”Is your organization funded by Pete Peterson?”. The answer would shock you.
Romney/Ryan Losing Senior Vote as CouponCare Details Revealed
It appears the Romney/Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is on the same trajectory as President Bush’s failed Social Security privatization road show in 2005. The more the American people learn about these privatization schemes the less they like them. New polling released this week show that no matter how ending traditional Medicare is spun…Americans simply don’t support it.
It also shows that the GOP strategy of telling seniors “don’t worry we won’t touch you” doesn’t work. Why? Because the “greedy geezer” mythology that underpins this cynical ploy does not represent the average American senior. Retirees have said time and again, they want retirement security for their children and grandchildren just as much as for themselves.
New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks – since just after the Democratic National Convention – support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.
Romney’s double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare – the nation’s health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled – also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas. Reuters, September 24
These results aren’t an anomaly and mirror what Pew Research also found this month:
A Pew poll, conducted September 12-16 and released last week, showed Romney with only a 47 to 46 percent lead among registered voters aged 65-plus. He also trailed Obama by 7 points among people aged 45 to 64 – a huge potential voting bloc that analysts say is increasingly concerned about retirement security.
To illustrate the challenge that Romney could face in November, analysts note that Republican John McCain won 53 percent of the vote among those 65 and older in 2008, and lost to Obama with 46 percent of the overall vote.”This is certainly a bit of a game changer,” Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said of the increasing support for Obama among older Americans. “Older individuals vote. They’re the ones who turn up on Election Day, for sure.” Pew Research Center, September 19
This is exactly why the GOP’s political strategy was to avoid a full conversation of the Romney/Ryan voucher plan for Medicare during this campaign entirely, instructing their candidates to dodge and deflect to a rehash of health care reform instead. However, as our President/CEO, Max Richtman, predicted this summer:
“what this divert and deflect strategy ignores is how much easier it was to fool voters before the ACA was implemented. I predict this year will be different. It’s simply a lot harder now to believe a political candidate who’s telling you your Medicare benefits were slashed when you remember taking your $250 drug rebate check to the bank, you paid $600 less in drug costs this year, didn’t fall into the donut hole, and received your first free mammogram in Medicare. Now that seniors are seeing first hand their benefits were not cut, and were in fact improved, this Medicare myth can finally be laid to rest next to the infamous (and also false) “death panels” claim made by Republicans.
The GOP “Obamacare Robs Medicare” myth will finally be exposed and with the selection of Paul Ryan it should get the national attention needed to put a stop to it once and for all. Just as with President Bush’s campaign to privatize Social Security, the more the American people find out what the Ryan/GOP plan for Medicare contains the less they’ll like it. That process has just begun and it will be a real eye-opener for the millions of American retirees who continue to be the targets of one of most cynical Mediscare campaigns in political history.” Max Richtman, President/CEO, Huffington Post Oped
Did you Hear the one About the Baby Boomer and the Millennial That Go on a Road Trip?
Recently, I had the chance to travel through the state of Ohio with rock n’ roll legend, Jon Bauman aka Bowzer from Sha Na Na. Documenting each moment from the eye of my lens, we had quite the road trip. Starting off in Columbus, Ohio, I really didn’t know how the next three days would go. In the past, I’ve travelled with musicians and artists all over the United States & Canada but what made this time different? Well, the obvious points to the subject matter: Social Security and Medicare.
Jon and I traveled throughout Ohio as part of theNational Committee’s Truth Tour, which is a national grassroots campaign to educate voters about how much is at stake when they go to the polls this November. The main point that Jon emphasized over these past three days was that both programs are under assault. Romney and Ryan have voiced their opinions and plans for the two programs very clearly. They want to privatize Social Security by creating private accounts and turn Medicare into a voucher program or “CouponCare”. When I am eligible for Medicare, I don’t want to use a coupon to purchase my Medicare. Coupons are for groceries, not Medicare. And I certainly don’t want my Social Security controlled by Wall Street.
With over six hours in the car, we spoke about these programs the majority of the time. Jumping from his amazing stories in the music industry to Medicare and Social Security, it became clear to me that Jon has always been an activist at heart and advocating for these programs as he himself turned 65 was a natural. In fact he told me, “There’s no better way to celebrate this birthday than being here talking to people about these programs.” Bowzer has had these two programs on his mind his whole life. But I have to admit that, for me, thinking about Social Security at a young age just hasn’t been on my mind. When I got my first job working for my father, all I knew was that a percentage of my paycheck was paid into Social Security. When I asked what that was, it was always described as: “Oh, you’ll see it in your 60s or maybe not at all.” I found that last part a bit disconcerting. If I am paying into it all my working life, then why won’t it be there?
The answer to that question is Social Security and Medicarewill be there for us as long as my generation doesn’t buy the lie that America can no longer afford these programs. Social Security would be in serious trouble if it’s privatized and put at the mercy of Wall Street. The program can be fixed with a few modest changes. One idea is raising the payroll tax cap to just $250,000, which would extend the solvency by decades. Lifting it entirely fixes the problem completely. But it’s up to my generation to educate ourselves and not buy into the generational warfare argument that tries to pit us against our parents and grandparents.
This trip has taught me a lot but the one point that stands out the most is that baby boomers and millennials have a lot in common when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Both generations have earned this economic security in our retirement and both need (and will need) the guaranteed benefits they provide. No matter our age, baby boomers like Jon and millennials like me don’t want our retirement years put at the mercy of private insurance companies and Wall Street.
So, that’s why the Baby Boomer and the Millennial took a little road trip. Hopefully, you’ll join us too.
29 Senators Say No Cuts to Social Security Benefits: What About the Others?
Senator Bernie Sanders has circulated a dear colleague letter in the Senate declaring that Social Security benefit cuts should NOT be a part of any deficit so-called “Grand Bargain” destined to be the focal-point of this fall’s lame duck Congressional session. Sen. Sanders is the founder of the Senate’s Defending Social Security Caucus, and organized this effort with the help of Senators Begich(D-AK), Franken(D-MN) and Whitehouse (D-RI). The letter, signed by 29 Democratic Senators, says:
“Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation’s deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program’s own revenues. Social Security cannot drive up the deficit by tapping general revenues to pay benefits. To be sure, Social Security has its own long-term challenges that will need to be addressed in the decades ahead. But the budget and Social Security are separate, and should be considered separately.”
The vast majority of American’s couldn’t agree more. However, we have to wonder why only 29 signatures on this letter? Where are the others?
So who didn’t sign? Max Baucus, Michael Bennet, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kay Hagan, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jeanne Shaheen, Jon Tester, Mark Udall, Mark Warner, Jim Webb.
A number of these members are retiring so it’s also important to factor in their replacements and where these new Senators stand on cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit. We recommend you read David Dayen’s breakdown of some of the other missing signees and what it could mean for Social Security.
Our Presidential Debate Scorecard Shows Viewers Were the Real Losers
Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO. Originally appeared on Huffington Post.
Presidential debates have long been more about style than substance but this week’s debate has taken us into new territory. Once the event ended and each answer had been parsed and re-parsed by the media and our national punditry class, it’s clear that American voters have been left with the largest collection of misrepresentations, half-truths and political fairy tales in Presidential debate history. This is especially true when you consider the comments and promises made about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. From President Obama’s still inscrutable comment about Social Security to Mitt Romney’s demonstrably false claims about Medicare, it’s no wonder America’s seniors and their families are left scratching their heads.
49 million Americans depend on Medicare, more than 60 million on Medicaid and 55 million on Social Security. These programs touch the lives of virtually every American family in every community in our nation and are now at the center of a campaign to cut benefits as part of a so-called deficit “grand bargain”. Surely, Americans deserve the full truth about what our Presidential candidates plan for these programs’ futures rather than headlines like these: “Romney Wins on Style, Obama Wins on Facts”, “Mostly Fiction”, “Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes”, “Romney Goes on Offense, Pays For It in First Wave of Fact-Checks” and “Obama’s Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled”.
Here are worst of the myths presented in this first Presidential debate:
Health care reform cuts $716 billion from Medicare.
This is poll-tested rhetoric seen in campaigns nationwide designed to trick seniors into believing their benefits have been cut. Truth is, not one penny of Medicare benefits was cut in the Affordable Care Act. In fact, that money is being used to improve health care and save money for Medicare beneficiaries. These benefits include preventive screenings and services, annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans with no out-of-pocket costs, as well as discounts on prescription drugs in the Part D coverage gap known as the “donut hole” which will be closed by 2020. Medicare’s solvency has been extended by eight years and in 2012, for the first time ever, the Part B deductible decreased from $162 to $140 per year.
Romney also did not mention that the GOP/Ryan budget he supports also includes these Medicare cuts yet this GOP plan does not reinvest one penny back into the program. Instead, they use that money to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and deficit reduction
Don’t Worry Seniors, My Plan Won’t Impact You.
Not only does this cynical pandering to seniors not work—older Americans know their children and grandchildren will need these programs too– it’s also wrong. Governor Romney promised to repeal “Obamacare” on day one. That means on the first day of his administration seniors would lose free preventive benefits and annual wellness exams, prescription drug and premium costs will increase by hundreds of dollars per year, the Part D donut hole returns, private insurance companies get their taxpayer handouts back, and Medicare would be bankrupt by the end of a Romney first term.
Seniors would also see increased long-term care costs, including increased costs for nursing home care, because of cuts to Medicaid. The Romney/Ryan proposed Medicaid cuts mean a loss of over $2,500 annually for seniors who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.
The Romney/Ryan “CouponCare” plan won’t end traditional Medicare because people can choose Medicare as an option.
Nonsense. Chairman Ryan’s plan sets up a scenario that will put Medicare into a death spiral. This plan calls for private plans to provide benefits that are at least “actuarially equivalent” to the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare, which gives private insurance companies the ability to manipulate their plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors. This would leave traditional Medicare with older and sicker beneficiaries whose higher health costs could lead to higher premiums that people would be unable or unwilling to pay, resulting in a death spiral for traditional Medicare. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ (CBPP) reports, “over time, traditional Medicare would become less financially viable and could unravel — not because it was less efficient than the private plans, but because it was competing on an unlevel playing field in which private plans captured the healthier beneficiaries and incurred lower costs as a result.”
Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand that it’s politically impossible to pass legislation ending traditional Medicare. However, their “CouponCare” plan is a means to that end by putting traditional Medicare into a fiscally untenable position. Seniors will end up going back in time, to the days before Medicare, where they will once again be at the mercy of private insurance companies. It also makes it harder for seniors to choose their own doctor. Giving them a voucher that loses value over time means older Americans will pay more for less while private insurance companies reap the gains.
This election will likely determine the future of America’s most successful anti-poverty and retirement security programs. Few American families will remain untouched by the decisions the next President and Congress will soon make. It’s really not too much to ask that our candidates ditch the political propaganda and mistruths and start giving it to us straight. The Vice Presidential debate on October 11th is a good place to start.
This Election – A Referendum on Social Security & Medicare
Every once in awhile we read an article that’s so spot-on it’s impossible to pick just one excerpt to share with our readers. Yesterday’s opinion piece by the New York Times’ Paul Krugman is just that type of piece. It’s that good and our “Networthy Award” winner this week.
September 30, 2012
The Real Referendum
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Republicans came into this campaign believing that it would be a referendum on President Obama, and that still-high unemployment would hand them victory on a silver platter. But given the usual caveats — a month can be a long time in politics, it’s not over until the votes are actually counted, and so on — it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.
Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?
If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age. But here’s the question: Will that election result be honored?
I ask that question because we already know what Mr. Obama will face if re-elected: a clamor from Beltway insiders demanding that he immediately return to his failed political strategy of 2011, in which he made a Grand Bargain over the budget deficit his overriding priority. Now is the time, he’ll be told, to fix America’s entitlement problem once and for all. There will be calls — as there were at the time of the Democratic National Convention — for him to officially endorse Simpson-Bowles, the budget proposal issued by the co-chairmen of his deficit commission (although never accepted by the commission as a whole).
And Mr. Obama should just say no, for three reasons.
First, despite years of dire warnings from people like, well, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, we are not facing any kind of fiscal crisis. Indeed, U.S. borrowing costs are at historic lows, with investors actually willing to pay the government for the privilege of owning inflation-protected bonds. So reducing the budget deficit just isn’t the top priority for America at the moment; creating jobs is. For now, the administration’s political capital should be devoted to passing something like last year’s American Jobs Act and providing effective mortgage debt relief.
Second, contrary to Beltway conventional wisdom, America does not have an “entitlements problem.” Mainly, it has a health cost problem, private as well as public, which must be addressed (and which the Affordable Care Act at least starts to address). It’s true that there’s also, even aside from health care, a gap between the services we’re promising and the taxes we’re collecting — but to call that gap an “entitlements” issue is already to accept the very right-wing frame that voters appear to be in the process of rejecting.
Finally, despite the bizarre reverence it inspires in Beltway insiders — the same people, by the way, who assured us that Paul Ryan was a brave truth-teller — the fact is that Simpson-Bowles is a really bad plan, one that would undermine some key pieces of our safety net. And if a re-elected president were to endorse it, he would be betraying the trust of the voters who returned him to office.
Consider, in particular, the proposal to raise the Social Security retirement age, supposedly to reflect rising life expectancy. This is an idea Washington loves — but it’s also totally at odds with the reality of an America in which rising inequality is reflected not just in the quality of life but in its duration. For while average life expectancy has indeed risen, that increase is confined to the relatively well-off and well-educated — the very people who need Social Security least. Meanwhile, life expectancy is actually falling for a substantial part of the nation.
Now, there’s no mystery about why Simpson-Bowles looks the way it does. It was put together in a political environment in which progressives, and even supporters of the safety net as we know it, were very much on the defensive — an environment in which conservatives were presumed to be in the ascendant, and in which bipartisanship was effectively defined as the effort to broker deals between the center-right and the hard right.
Barring an upset, however, that environment will come to an end on Nov. 6. This election is, as I said, shaping up as a referendum on our social insurance system, and it looks as if Mr. Obama will emerge with a clear mandate for preserving and extending that system. It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
**The only thing we’d add to this wonderful piece is that this “we must cut benefits” environment didn’t happen organically. It’s the product of a billion dollar campaign funded by former Nixon Commerce Secretary, multi-billionaire, and anti-entitlement scold Pete Peterson, to persuade Washington that we can’t afford America’s safety net. This campaign is years in the making and its funding has branched out to virtually every one of the so-called “non-partisan” groups who’ve dutifully written reports calling for benefit cuts, the media including the Washington Post, and has even provided staff for the Fiscal Commission. In fact, the first question any journalist or reader of one of these reports should be asking is…”Is your organization funded by Pete Peterson?”. The answer would shock you.
Romney/Ryan Losing Senior Vote as CouponCare Details Revealed
It appears the Romney/Ryan plan to privatize Medicare is on the same trajectory as President Bush’s failed Social Security privatization road show in 2005. The more the American people learn about these privatization schemes the less they like them. New polling released this week show that no matter how ending traditional Medicare is spun…Americans simply don’t support it.
It also shows that the GOP strategy of telling seniors “don’t worry we won’t touch you” doesn’t work. Why? Because the “greedy geezer” mythology that underpins this cynical ploy does not represent the average American senior. Retirees have said time and again, they want retirement security for their children and grandchildren just as much as for themselves.
New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks – since just after the Democratic National Convention – support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.
Romney’s double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare – the nation’s health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled – also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas. Reuters, September 24
These results aren’t an anomaly and mirror what Pew Research also found this month:
A Pew poll, conducted September 12-16 and released last week, showed Romney with only a 47 to 46 percent lead among registered voters aged 65-plus. He also trailed Obama by 7 points among people aged 45 to 64 – a huge potential voting bloc that analysts say is increasingly concerned about retirement security.
To illustrate the challenge that Romney could face in November, analysts note that Republican John McCain won 53 percent of the vote among those 65 and older in 2008, and lost to Obama with 46 percent of the overall vote.”This is certainly a bit of a game changer,” Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said of the increasing support for Obama among older Americans. “Older individuals vote. They’re the ones who turn up on Election Day, for sure.” Pew Research Center, September 19
This is exactly why the GOP’s political strategy was to avoid a full conversation of the Romney/Ryan voucher plan for Medicare during this campaign entirely, instructing their candidates to dodge and deflect to a rehash of health care reform instead. However, as our President/CEO, Max Richtman, predicted this summer:
“what this divert and deflect strategy ignores is how much easier it was to fool voters before the ACA was implemented. I predict this year will be different. It’s simply a lot harder now to believe a political candidate who’s telling you your Medicare benefits were slashed when you remember taking your $250 drug rebate check to the bank, you paid $600 less in drug costs this year, didn’t fall into the donut hole, and received your first free mammogram in Medicare. Now that seniors are seeing first hand their benefits were not cut, and were in fact improved, this Medicare myth can finally be laid to rest next to the infamous (and also false) “death panels” claim made by Republicans.
The GOP “Obamacare Robs Medicare” myth will finally be exposed and with the selection of Paul Ryan it should get the national attention needed to put a stop to it once and for all. Just as with President Bush’s campaign to privatize Social Security, the more the American people find out what the Ryan/GOP plan for Medicare contains the less they’ll like it. That process has just begun and it will be a real eye-opener for the millions of American retirees who continue to be the targets of one of most cynical Mediscare campaigns in political history.” Max Richtman, President/CEO, Huffington Post Oped
Did you Hear the one About the Baby Boomer and the Millennial That Go on a Road Trip?
Recently, I had the chance to travel through the state of Ohio with rock n’ roll legend, Jon Bauman aka Bowzer from Sha Na Na. Documenting each moment from the eye of my lens, we had quite the road trip. Starting off in Columbus, Ohio, I really didn’t know how the next three days would go. In the past, I’ve travelled with musicians and artists all over the United States & Canada but what made this time different? Well, the obvious points to the subject matter: Social Security and Medicare.
Jon and I traveled throughout Ohio as part of theNational Committee’s Truth Tour, which is a national grassroots campaign to educate voters about how much is at stake when they go to the polls this November. The main point that Jon emphasized over these past three days was that both programs are under assault. Romney and Ryan have voiced their opinions and plans for the two programs very clearly. They want to privatize Social Security by creating private accounts and turn Medicare into a voucher program or “CouponCare”. When I am eligible for Medicare, I don’t want to use a coupon to purchase my Medicare. Coupons are for groceries, not Medicare. And I certainly don’t want my Social Security controlled by Wall Street.
With over six hours in the car, we spoke about these programs the majority of the time. Jumping from his amazing stories in the music industry to Medicare and Social Security, it became clear to me that Jon has always been an activist at heart and advocating for these programs as he himself turned 65 was a natural. In fact he told me, “There’s no better way to celebrate this birthday than being here talking to people about these programs.” Bowzer has had these two programs on his mind his whole life. But I have to admit that, for me, thinking about Social Security at a young age just hasn’t been on my mind. When I got my first job working for my father, all I knew was that a percentage of my paycheck was paid into Social Security. When I asked what that was, it was always described as: “Oh, you’ll see it in your 60s or maybe not at all.” I found that last part a bit disconcerting. If I am paying into it all my working life, then why won’t it be there?
The answer to that question is Social Security and Medicarewill be there for us as long as my generation doesn’t buy the lie that America can no longer afford these programs. Social Security would be in serious trouble if it’s privatized and put at the mercy of Wall Street. The program can be fixed with a few modest changes. One idea is raising the payroll tax cap to just $250,000, which would extend the solvency by decades. Lifting it entirely fixes the problem completely. But it’s up to my generation to educate ourselves and not buy into the generational warfare argument that tries to pit us against our parents and grandparents.
This trip has taught me a lot but the one point that stands out the most is that baby boomers and millennials have a lot in common when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. Both generations have earned this economic security in our retirement and both need (and will need) the guaranteed benefits they provide. No matter our age, baby boomers like Jon and millennials like me don’t want our retirement years put at the mercy of private insurance companies and Wall Street.
So, that’s why the Baby Boomer and the Millennial took a little road trip. Hopefully, you’ll join us too.
29 Senators Say No Cuts to Social Security Benefits: What About the Others?
Senator Bernie Sanders has circulated a dear colleague letter in the Senate declaring that Social Security benefit cuts should NOT be a part of any deficit so-called “Grand Bargain” destined to be the focal-point of this fall’s lame duck Congressional session. Sen. Sanders is the founder of the Senate’s Defending Social Security Caucus, and organized this effort with the help of Senators Begich(D-AK), Franken(D-MN) and Whitehouse (D-RI). The letter, signed by 29 Democratic Senators, says:
“Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation’s deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program’s own revenues. Social Security cannot drive up the deficit by tapping general revenues to pay benefits. To be sure, Social Security has its own long-term challenges that will need to be addressed in the decades ahead. But the budget and Social Security are separate, and should be considered separately.”
The vast majority of American’s couldn’t agree more. However, we have to wonder why only 29 signatures on this letter? Where are the others?
So who didn’t sign? Max Baucus, Michael Bennet, Jeff Bingaman, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Chris Coons, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kay Hagan, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jeanne Shaheen, Jon Tester, Mark Udall, Mark Warner, Jim Webb.
A number of these members are retiring so it’s also important to factor in their replacements and where these new Senators stand on cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit. We recommend you read David Dayen’s breakdown of some of the other missing signees and what it could mean for Social Security.