NY Times Op-ed Attempts to Divide the Generations to Undermine Social Security & Medicare
Way back in 1983, the Koch-seeded Cato Institute published a paper entitled, “Achieving A Leninist Strategy,” which mapped out a right-wing scheme to undermine Social Security by dividing the generations. The strategy was: convince young people that Social Security is a bad deal for them, because they have to pay into it while an undeserving older generation collects benefits. This, in turn, would weaken public support for the program, as the L.A. Times’ Michael Hiltzik explained:
“The authors… were anguished over President Reagan’s failure to exploit Social Security’s 1982 fiscal crisis to privatize the program. They concluded that the reason was the program’s strong support among the powerful voting bloc of seniors, compounded by the indifference of younger voters. The answer, they concluded, was to undermine confidence in Social Security among the young.’” – Michael Hiltzik, L.A. Times
It’s not that the conservative/libertarian movement suddenly cared about the welfare of young adults. Then, as now, they simply did not believe in social insurance, because they do not believe that the federal government has a legitimate role in providing basic financial and health security to working Americans. The conservative movement fundamentally opposes Social Security and Medicare as we know them — unless the programs are privatized so that Wall Street and Corporate America can get their hands on that money. (It has partially worked where Medicare is concerned, in the form of Medicare Advantage.)
Forty years after the CATO Institute paper, this strategy is still very much in effect. The New York Times ran not one – but two – conservative opinion pieces in the past week, attempting to convince readers that Social Security is unfair to younger adults.
The first opinion piece (the one we will address here), “For the Good of the Country, Older Americans Should Work More and Take Less,” was written by Craig Seuerle (76) of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and Glenn Kramon (70), Assistant Managing Editor of the New York Times. Apparently speaking for all seniors, these two presumably well-compensated white collar professionals write, “We are consuming an ever larger share of our economy’s resources through programs like Social Security and Medicare, leaving younger Americans to foot growing bills for their parents’ and grandparents’ retirements.”
Their solution for this “problem” is not surprising: raise the retirement age for Social Security and do not allow people in their early 60’s to claim early. “Those in late middle age will need to work longer as they live longer,” they glibly proclaim. Medicare, which the authors say “discourages work after 64” must be “re-designed.” Translation: the eligibility age should be raised and benefits cut.
The blatantly ageist artwork accompanying the NY Times op-ed
Their justification for slashing Americans’ social insurance programs beyond recognition is that seniors, on average, are too prosperous and consume too much to need Social Security and Medicare as they exist today. Besides, people are living so much longer these days; they should work for a living in their 60s instead of collecting Social Security or getting health care from Medicare. Younger people, the authors say, shouldn’t have to foot the bill for seniors’ retirement.
How to begin untangling this disingenuous argument? First of all, while it’s true that some groups of Americans are living longer, other demographics aren’t. Longevity in 21st century America largely depends on socioeconomic status. For example, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, life expectancy for Black Americans was only 70.8 years compared to 76.4 years for white people.
The authors insist that people in their 60s should simply work longer. But they omit the fact that, while white collar professionals like themselves may be able to work through their 60s, many workers in physically-demanding jobs cannot. Not to mention: where are all these jobs for workers in their 60s? Many people in this age group face layoffs and job discrimination that make it difficult to continue holding a job.
Simply put, the Times piece is self-serving and misleading. Journalist Robert Kuttner debunked the authors’ claims quite tidily in the American Prospect:
The core fallacy in these arguments is the use of averages. On average, the elderly are richer, but that average includes Warren Buffett and the guy bagging groceries at your local supermarket because he can’t afford to retire.
On average, older homeowners have benefited from the run-up in housing values, but older renters spend more and more of their incomes on housing.
On average, older Americans are living longer and working longer. But affluent Americans tend to live longer than poorer ones. And well-off professionals tend to work well past retirement age because they love their work, while poorer Americans work at crappy jobs because they need the income. – Robert Kuttner, American Prospect, 10/31/23
In other words, not everyone is as comfortable as Seuerle and Kramon. The seniors that we meet tell us that they depend on every dollar of their Social Security benefits to pay the bills — and sometimes they still come up short and have to choose between essentials like rent and groceries. Social Security is especially crucial to communities of color. Some 50% of Black Americans would be living in poverty without Social Security.
Ditto with Medicare. We have heard poignant stories from seniors across the demographic spectrum who say they would not be alive without the life-saving medical care they received through Medicare.
And what about those younger adults who are supposedly so burdened by contributing a small percentage of their income to Social Security and Medicare so that they can collect benefits when they’re older? It’s likely that younger people would be much better off if their student debts were forgiven, if college were affordable, and if young families had affordable daycare. Most younger workers would probably rather have those things than compromise their future Social Security benefits.
Of course, most conservatives oppose those improvements for younger Americans, because they likely would require federal spending. The right’s default solution is always to cut benefits – in this case Social Security and Medicare.
Responding to the Times opinion piece, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) argues that growing wealth inequality – fostered by 40 years of Reaganomics – is far more burdensome to young Americans than paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes:
“In short, we have made a series of policy decisions that have led to a massive upward redistribution of income in the last half-century. The impact of this upward redistribution on the income of young workers dwarfs the impact of demographics. Unfortunately, our news outlets seem more interested in highlighting the demographic (young vs. old) issue than the causes of inequality.” – Dean Baker, CEPR, 10/29/23
Unfortunately, the conservative propaganda has been partially working. Young people still may support the Social Security program, but their confidence in it has been undermined by the ‘gloom and doom’ scenario that the right promulgates. As our President and CEO Max Richtman points out, some younger adults believe they are more likely to see a U.F.O. or Bigfoot than to receive a Social Security check when they retire.
In fact, younger adults are already covered by Social Security, though they may not realize it. For example, a 27 year-old with a spouse and two children has some $2 million worth of life and disability insurance from Social Security. The perpetrators of the ‘generational divide’ propaganda never seem to mention that. Nor do they mention that the average Millennial is on track to receive about $1 million in lifetime benefits.
In a 2021 poll, more than 60% of Millennials said that Social Security “should be enough to help me live comfortably in retirement.” That’s a good sign. NCPSSM and other advocates will continue to spread the word that Social Security is ‘a good deal’ for today’s younger adults and tomorrow’s retirees. For 88 years, it has worked as an inter-generational compact to provide workers with basic financial security. Let’s not allow well-funded and well-off conservatives to ‘divide and conquer’ the generations in order to kill or privatize two of our nation’s most effective and popular programs, Social Security and Medicare.
NCPSSM President Testifies Against Fiscal Commission Proposal
NCPSSM president Max Richtman offered testimony today to the U.S. House Budget Committee, warning that the creation of a fiscal commission to address the federal debt could jeopardize Social Security and Medicare benefits.
“As Congress grapples with the implications of a federal debt currently topping $33 trillion, pressure by fiscal conservatives inevitably turns to finding ‘savings’ in Social Security, even though this critical social insurance program for America’s workers does not contribute a single penny to the national debt,” said Richtman in his testimony.
As Laura Haltzel of the Century Foundation points out, “The simple fact is, Social Security is self-financed… and has accumulated massive surpluses… to pay current and future benefits. Further, it simply cannot add to the government’s publicly held debt, as it has no borrowing authority.” (Medicare Part A is also self-financed by workers’ payroll contributions.)
That has not stopped fiscal conservatives from coming after Social Security and Medicare in the name of debt reduction. Several of the Republican budget committee members at today’s hearing, including Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), conflated Americans’ earned benefits with the federal debt, claiming that “fiscal dysfunction” in Washington is linked to Social Security and Medicare.
In point of fact, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the number one driver of the debt is “tax expenditures” — giveaways to the wealthy and profitable corporations that forsake revenue that could help reduce red ink. Of course, fiscal conservatives seldom mention the Trump/GOP tax cuts, which swelled the debt by some $2 trillion. Many congressional Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent.
Democrats in today’s hearing pointed out that there is no need for a fiscal commission, arguing that Congress should deliberate and pass legislation under “regular order” rather than relegate such important issues to an unelected panel. “When we have a functioning Congress, we have the tools to deal with all of this,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who noted that fiscal commissions “always seem to target Social Security and Medicare.”
One Republican on the committee seemed to agree. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said that the “ultimate bipartisan commission is called Congress” — and urged members not to “pass the buck” to a fiscal commission.
“Fiscal commissions always seem to target Social Security & Medicare,” says Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Opponents, including NCPSSM, have argued that such commissions traditionally emphasize cuts to social insurance programs while ignoring revenue-side solutions. “If revenue is not on the table, it is a commission to cut Social Security and Medicare,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) at the hearing.
“Commissions are designed to squeeze every possible dollar of savings out of Social Security without consideration for the adequacy of benefits during their deliberations. They are intended as a vehicle for enacting deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare that could never pass Congress on their own because of their unpopularity with the voting public.” – Max Ricthman, NCPSSM President, Congressional testimony, 10/19/23
Advocates for a fiscal commission point to the Greenspan Commission, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and the Congress in 1981 to make recommendations on the short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time, as a model for a new one. But the socioeconomic and political landscape has changed drastically in the past 42 years — and the Greenspan Commission was far from an unmitigated success.
“Robert Ball, a major player in the Greenspan Commission, famously wrote, ‘Nothing should obscure the fact that (it) was not an example of a successful bipartisan commission. The commission itself stalled after reaching agreement on the size of the problem that needed to be addressed. As a commission, that was as far as it got.’” – Laura Haltzel, Century Foundation, 10/18/23
Former House Budget Committee chairman John Yarmouth (D-KY) testified that “unelected commissions” do not have “superhuman powers.” And, he added, “They do not have souls.”
Read NCPSSM’s Viewpoint about the Greenspan Commission here.
Reassurance & Warning at Social Security Town Hall in Las Vegas
The message at Thursday’s NCPSSM/AARP town hall in Las Vegas was: the government may temporarily shut down on September 30th, but Social Security is here to stay. The town hall, entitled “Social Security: Here Today, Here Tomorrow,” was an opportunity for nearly 100 Las Vegas residents to hear from some of the nation’s leading experts about the enduring value of Social Security — and to receive reassurance that benefits still will be paid during a shutdown.
“We believe it is especially important to be holding this town hall here in Las Vegas,” said AARP Nevada State Director, Maria Moore. “Nevada has 565,000 Social Security beneficiaries, including over 30,000 children.” Moore also pointed out that Social Security benefits inject $9 billion each year into the state’s economy.
The Las Vegas event was one of a series of town halls that AARP and NCPSSM are holding across the country this year as part of a public education campaign to enhance Americans’ knowledge about the program. “Social Security isn’t only a retirement program,” said moderator Jon Ralston (of the Nevada Independent) in welcoming the audience to the town hall. “It is social insurance for families, providing financial support after the loss of a family breadwinner’s income through retirement, disability, or death.”
Jon Ralston, founder of the Nevada Independent, moderated the town hall
The town hall came as time was running short for Congress to avert a likely government shutdown on September 30. A shutdown would not directly impact Social Security benefits, but could put additional strain on the already underfunded Social Security Administration (SSA). Annie Walters, public affairs specialist at the SSA Nevada office and a panelist at the town hall, said that making sure benefits are paid is a “priority” for SSA. “Our plan is that benefits will go out,” she told the audience.
Walters said that SSA’s contingency plan is designed to ensure that critical customer service issues still are addressed during a shutdown. However, she said, it may be difficult for beneficiaries to obtain benefit verification letters if the government shuts down, because that is not considered a “critical” service.
SSA has been struggling to provide adequate customer service for more than a decade thanks to chronic underfunding that began with the Tea Party-fomented debt limit crisis in 2011. Former acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin told the town hall audience that SSA needs more funding to better serve the public.
NCPSSM President and CEO Max Richtman busted several myths about Social Security, such as “Social Security is going bankrupt”; “Illegal immigrants are collecting Social Security”; or that Social Security is an “entitlement.” “It is not an ‘entitlement.’ It’s an earned benefit,” he said.
Richtman warned against proposals in Congress that would cut Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age to 69 or 70. “Just because some people are living longer doesn’t mean all Americans can work longer. Raising the age is a benefit cut, plain and simple,” he said.
He also pushed back against Congressional proposals to create a special commission to scrutinize Social Security on the false assumption that it contributes to the debt. (Social Security is completely self-funded and does not add a penny to the debt.) Speaker Kevin McCarthy reportedly is including a fiscal commission in the House Republicans’ stopgap funding bill.
“If recommendations from a commission are bundled together and enacted quickly, it allows Congress to avoid political accountability,” Richtman told the audience. He said that some members of Congress want “political cover” to cut benefits, knowing that Social Security is enormously popular with voters.
Nearly 100 Nevadans attended the AARP/NCPSSM town hall in Las Vegas on 9/28/23
Attendees of the town hall included retirees and Nevadans who are still working. Rebecca McDuffie, an inventory control clerk, said she attended in hopes of finding out “What is the right time to claim benefits?” She also seeks reassurance that Social Security will be around by the time she retires.
Davina Koehler, a retired kitchen manager for the county school system, had questions about the amount of her Social Security survivor’s benefit. Others asked, “If I collect VA benefits, does it affect my Social Security benefits.” (The answer: no.) Also: “Do I get a lower benefit if I continue working?” (Before full retirement age, benefits can be reduced if you’re working; after full retirement age, there are no limits on how much you can earn through employment.)
Representatives from the offices of Senator Catherine Cortes Masto (D-NV) and Rep. Dina Titus’ (D-NV) were on hand to respond to attendees’ questions. Former Commissioner Colvin urged everyone to set up a My Social Security account for more information about their current or future benefits.
The final “Social Security: Here Today, Here Tomorrow” town hall will take place in Milwaukee, WI on November 1, 2023.
For more information about the campaign, visit www.socialsecurityheretoday.org
Would a Government Shutdown Affect Social Security and Medicare?
First, the good news. Even if the government shuts down at the end of this week because of House Republican intransigence, Social Security benefits will continue to be paid and customer service for retirees should not get significantly worse – in the short term, anyway. Medicare benefits would not be affected, either — but beneficiaries would be unable to obtain replacement Medicare cards during a shutdown. (Social Security cards would still be available, but benefit verifications will not.)
Now, the bad news. The impending shutdown is symptomatic of a disorder in Congress that seniors should care about: MAGA hardliners once again gumming up the works of a government which best serves the public when operating smoothly, without needless disruptions. (See last spring’s default crisis, promulgated by the House GOP.) Many of these are the same House Republicans who have proposed to cut Social Security. The MAGA faction also wants to slash the already underfunded Social Security Administration’s (SSA) budget by 8%, which could have devastating effects on customer service.
Fortunately, Social Security benefits would continue to be paid during a shutdown because they are considered by law to be mandatory spending. (It should be noted that GOP Senator Ron Johnson proposed in 2022 that Social Security and Medicare no longer be considered mandatory.) Any Social Security Administration employees with a role in administering Social Security benefits are considered “essential personnel” and would not be furloughed during a shutdown. But these workers will not be paid until the shutdown is over. Some 8,500 of SSA’s 62,000 employees would be furloughed as “non-essential,” according to NCPSSM’s senior Social Security analyst, Maria Freese.
“Anything that slows the process down, and makes it more challenging, is something that everybody ought to worry about. This is an agency with over 60,000 employees — none of whom is going to get paid during a shutdown. Yes, the agency will continue to function. But it costs the government money as the agency falls further behind” – Maria Freese, NCPSSM senior Social Security analyst
While retirement benefits should remain largely unscathed, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) determinations could be affected by a shutdown. Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities told CBS News that state-level offices that determine eligibility for disability benefits may close, as they have in the past. “Because there are already huge backlogs in SSDI disability decisions, a government shutdown could worsen delays,” Romig said.
The House and Senate are running out of time to pass legislation (known as a “continuing resolution” or CR) to keep the government open past the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. “Sometime between now and the end of the week, the House would have to pass a CR, and there’s no agreement on how to do that,” said Freese. This is largely because MAGA House Republicans have demanded painful spending cuts (along with several spurious and unrelated demands). House Speaker Kevin McCarthy does not have the support within his own caucus to pass a CR, and he has so far been unwilling to work with Democrats to amass enough votes to avoid a shutdown.
Last week, we asked Maria Freese why some House Republicans seem perfectly willing to shut the government down for ideological reasons, regardless of the impact on everyday Americans. “I like to hope that they are simply unaware of the hardships that shutdowns cause to their own constituents, as some Republicans have said publicly that they don’t believe anyone would notice or care if the government closed,” said Freese. ” I believe this kind of cavalier attitude about our government demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation for the many services agencies like SSA provide to the average American senior.”
House GOP Spending Proposal Would Slash Social Security Administration Funding
House Republicans have agreed on a short-term measure to avert a government shutdown. They propose a continuing resolution (CR) that would run through the end of October. The proposed CR includes an overall cut in spending of 1% for those 31 days, but fully protects defense, veterans and disaster relief funding. That means an 8% spending cut from current funding for all other agencies, including the Social Security Administration (SSA). We spoke to NCPSSM senior legislative representative, Maria Freese, about what this means for the beleaguered SSA and the millions of claimants who rely on it.
Q: What would an 8% cut in the operating budget of SSA do to the SSA? What impact would that have on customer service?
A: Of course we don’t know exactly what the impact of any cut will be on SSA, but we do know they have already requested an increase of $727 million above current funding, as a minimum, for FY 2024. Without this level of funding, they will be forced to reduce staffing and overtime, which will hurt the agency’s ability to serve the public. Without that minimum level of funding, SSA’s customers will wait significantly longer for field office services, disability decisions, and phone support. A cut in funding will only make the problem worse, especially as the agency will have little time to plan for and implement such a drastic cut.
Q: If anything, SSA Needs a funding BOOST, doesn’t it?
A: Absolutely. We still have an average of 10,000 baby boomers reaching retirement age every day, which means demand for services from SSA continues to increase. When combined with the impact of inflation, it’s clear the agency needs more money to operate. Not only do they need to keep up with an increasing current demand, but decades of underfunding have left the agency with significant backlogs that they need to address. About 110,000 Americans have already died over the last decade waiting for disability determinations from SSA, a problem which will only get worse if the agency continues to be underfunded.
Q: How much of a funding increase would NCPSSM like to see SSA receive?
A: At a minimum, we support the Administration’s request of $15.5 billion for FY 2024, an amount which would help the agency keep up with current demand while continuing to reduce backlogs and update its technology. This is still a billion dollars below what the agency itself believes it needs to do its job adequately, but well above any of the funding levels being considered by Congress.
Q: Also, isn’t SSA supposed to be funded mainly through payroll taxes? So why slash it? Haven’t workers already paid for these services, in effect?
A: Yes, that is one of the truly frustrating things about SSA’s funding conundrum. SSA is fully funded by workers’ payroll taxes but unfortunately, (for accounting purposes) the agency is technically ‘on budget.’ This means that although SSA operations have already been paid for by American workers with every paycheck, the agency still must compete with every other government service for funding.
Q: What does it say about House Republicans’ priorities that they want to exempt military spending from cuts but are anxious to slash domestic spending like SSA operations in exchange for keeping the government open?
A: I like to hope that they are simply unaware of the hardships that shutdowns cause to their own constituents, as some Republicans have said publicly that they don’t believe anyone would notice or care if the government closed. I believe this kind of cavalier attitude about our government demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation for the many services agencies like SSA provide to the average American senior.
Q: NCPSSM has previously said that a shutdown, if it happens, would negatively impact SSA services. Is that still the case?
A: Yes, though the extent of the impact will partly depend on the length of the shutdown. Most SSA employees are exempt from the furloughs required during a government shutdown because the law requires that Social Security checks continue to be paid. Any employee essential to ensuring that those benefits are paid remains on the job. But agency employees are limited in the functions they can perform during a shutdown, so some services, such as the processing of disability claims, inevitably would be impacted.
NY Times Op-ed Attempts to Divide the Generations to Undermine Social Security & Medicare
Way back in 1983, the Koch-seeded Cato Institute published a paper entitled, “Achieving A Leninist Strategy,” which mapped out a right-wing scheme to undermine Social Security by dividing the generations. The strategy was: convince young people that Social Security is a bad deal for them, because they have to pay into it while an undeserving older generation collects benefits. This, in turn, would weaken public support for the program, as the L.A. Times’ Michael Hiltzik explained:
“The authors… were anguished over President Reagan’s failure to exploit Social Security’s 1982 fiscal crisis to privatize the program. They concluded that the reason was the program’s strong support among the powerful voting bloc of seniors, compounded by the indifference of younger voters. The answer, they concluded, was to undermine confidence in Social Security among the young.’” – Michael Hiltzik, L.A. Times
It’s not that the conservative/libertarian movement suddenly cared about the welfare of young adults. Then, as now, they simply did not believe in social insurance, because they do not believe that the federal government has a legitimate role in providing basic financial and health security to working Americans. The conservative movement fundamentally opposes Social Security and Medicare as we know them — unless the programs are privatized so that Wall Street and Corporate America can get their hands on that money. (It has partially worked where Medicare is concerned, in the form of Medicare Advantage.)
Forty years after the CATO Institute paper, this strategy is still very much in effect. The New York Times ran not one – but two – conservative opinion pieces in the past week, attempting to convince readers that Social Security is unfair to younger adults.
The first opinion piece (the one we will address here), “For the Good of the Country, Older Americans Should Work More and Take Less,” was written by Craig Seuerle (76) of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and Glenn Kramon (70), Assistant Managing Editor of the New York Times. Apparently speaking for all seniors, these two presumably well-compensated white collar professionals write, “We are consuming an ever larger share of our economy’s resources through programs like Social Security and Medicare, leaving younger Americans to foot growing bills for their parents’ and grandparents’ retirements.”
Their solution for this “problem” is not surprising: raise the retirement age for Social Security and do not allow people in their early 60’s to claim early. “Those in late middle age will need to work longer as they live longer,” they glibly proclaim. Medicare, which the authors say “discourages work after 64” must be “re-designed.” Translation: the eligibility age should be raised and benefits cut.
The blatantly ageist artwork accompanying the NY Times op-ed
Their justification for slashing Americans’ social insurance programs beyond recognition is that seniors, on average, are too prosperous and consume too much to need Social Security and Medicare as they exist today. Besides, people are living so much longer these days; they should work for a living in their 60s instead of collecting Social Security or getting health care from Medicare. Younger people, the authors say, shouldn’t have to foot the bill for seniors’ retirement.
How to begin untangling this disingenuous argument? First of all, while it’s true that some groups of Americans are living longer, other demographics aren’t. Longevity in 21st century America largely depends on socioeconomic status. For example, according to Kaiser Family Foundation, life expectancy for Black Americans was only 70.8 years compared to 76.4 years for white people.
The authors insist that people in their 60s should simply work longer. But they omit the fact that, while white collar professionals like themselves may be able to work through their 60s, many workers in physically-demanding jobs cannot. Not to mention: where are all these jobs for workers in their 60s? Many people in this age group face layoffs and job discrimination that make it difficult to continue holding a job.
Simply put, the Times piece is self-serving and misleading. Journalist Robert Kuttner debunked the authors’ claims quite tidily in the American Prospect:
The core fallacy in these arguments is the use of averages. On average, the elderly are richer, but that average includes Warren Buffett and the guy bagging groceries at your local supermarket because he can’t afford to retire.
On average, older homeowners have benefited from the run-up in housing values, but older renters spend more and more of their incomes on housing.
On average, older Americans are living longer and working longer. But affluent Americans tend to live longer than poorer ones. And well-off professionals tend to work well past retirement age because they love their work, while poorer Americans work at crappy jobs because they need the income. – Robert Kuttner, American Prospect, 10/31/23
In other words, not everyone is as comfortable as Seuerle and Kramon. The seniors that we meet tell us that they depend on every dollar of their Social Security benefits to pay the bills — and sometimes they still come up short and have to choose between essentials like rent and groceries. Social Security is especially crucial to communities of color. Some 50% of Black Americans would be living in poverty without Social Security.
Ditto with Medicare. We have heard poignant stories from seniors across the demographic spectrum who say they would not be alive without the life-saving medical care they received through Medicare.
And what about those younger adults who are supposedly so burdened by contributing a small percentage of their income to Social Security and Medicare so that they can collect benefits when they’re older? It’s likely that younger people would be much better off if their student debts were forgiven, if college were affordable, and if young families had affordable daycare. Most younger workers would probably rather have those things than compromise their future Social Security benefits.
Of course, most conservatives oppose those improvements for younger Americans, because they likely would require federal spending. The right’s default solution is always to cut benefits – in this case Social Security and Medicare.
Responding to the Times opinion piece, Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) argues that growing wealth inequality – fostered by 40 years of Reaganomics – is far more burdensome to young Americans than paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes:
“In short, we have made a series of policy decisions that have led to a massive upward redistribution of income in the last half-century. The impact of this upward redistribution on the income of young workers dwarfs the impact of demographics. Unfortunately, our news outlets seem more interested in highlighting the demographic (young vs. old) issue than the causes of inequality.” – Dean Baker, CEPR, 10/29/23
Unfortunately, the conservative propaganda has been partially working. Young people still may support the Social Security program, but their confidence in it has been undermined by the ‘gloom and doom’ scenario that the right promulgates. As our President and CEO Max Richtman points out, some younger adults believe they are more likely to see a U.F.O. or Bigfoot than to receive a Social Security check when they retire.
In fact, younger adults are already covered by Social Security, though they may not realize it. For example, a 27 year-old with a spouse and two children has some $2 million worth of life and disability insurance from Social Security. The perpetrators of the ‘generational divide’ propaganda never seem to mention that. Nor do they mention that the average Millennial is on track to receive about $1 million in lifetime benefits.
In a 2021 poll, more than 60% of Millennials said that Social Security “should be enough to help me live comfortably in retirement.” That’s a good sign. NCPSSM and other advocates will continue to spread the word that Social Security is ‘a good deal’ for today’s younger adults and tomorrow’s retirees. For 88 years, it has worked as an inter-generational compact to provide workers with basic financial security. Let’s not allow well-funded and well-off conservatives to ‘divide and conquer’ the generations in order to kill or privatize two of our nation’s most effective and popular programs, Social Security and Medicare.
NCPSSM President Testifies Against Fiscal Commission Proposal
NCPSSM president Max Richtman offered testimony today to the U.S. House Budget Committee, warning that the creation of a fiscal commission to address the federal debt could jeopardize Social Security and Medicare benefits.
“As Congress grapples with the implications of a federal debt currently topping $33 trillion, pressure by fiscal conservatives inevitably turns to finding ‘savings’ in Social Security, even though this critical social insurance program for America’s workers does not contribute a single penny to the national debt,” said Richtman in his testimony.
As Laura Haltzel of the Century Foundation points out, “The simple fact is, Social Security is self-financed… and has accumulated massive surpluses… to pay current and future benefits. Further, it simply cannot add to the government’s publicly held debt, as it has no borrowing authority.” (Medicare Part A is also self-financed by workers’ payroll contributions.)
That has not stopped fiscal conservatives from coming after Social Security and Medicare in the name of debt reduction. Several of the Republican budget committee members at today’s hearing, including Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), conflated Americans’ earned benefits with the federal debt, claiming that “fiscal dysfunction” in Washington is linked to Social Security and Medicare.
In point of fact, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the number one driver of the debt is “tax expenditures” — giveaways to the wealthy and profitable corporations that forsake revenue that could help reduce red ink. Of course, fiscal conservatives seldom mention the Trump/GOP tax cuts, which swelled the debt by some $2 trillion. Many congressional Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent.
Democrats in today’s hearing pointed out that there is no need for a fiscal commission, arguing that Congress should deliberate and pass legislation under “regular order” rather than relegate such important issues to an unelected panel. “When we have a functioning Congress, we have the tools to deal with all of this,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who noted that fiscal commissions “always seem to target Social Security and Medicare.”
One Republican on the committee seemed to agree. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said that the “ultimate bipartisan commission is called Congress” — and urged members not to “pass the buck” to a fiscal commission.
“Fiscal commissions always seem to target Social Security & Medicare,” says Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Opponents, including NCPSSM, have argued that such commissions traditionally emphasize cuts to social insurance programs while ignoring revenue-side solutions. “If revenue is not on the table, it is a commission to cut Social Security and Medicare,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) at the hearing.
“Commissions are designed to squeeze every possible dollar of savings out of Social Security without consideration for the adequacy of benefits during their deliberations. They are intended as a vehicle for enacting deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare that could never pass Congress on their own because of their unpopularity with the voting public.” – Max Ricthman, NCPSSM President, Congressional testimony, 10/19/23
Advocates for a fiscal commission point to the Greenspan Commission, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and the Congress in 1981 to make recommendations on the short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time, as a model for a new one. But the socioeconomic and political landscape has changed drastically in the past 42 years — and the Greenspan Commission was far from an unmitigated success.
“Robert Ball, a major player in the Greenspan Commission, famously wrote, ‘Nothing should obscure the fact that (it) was not an example of a successful bipartisan commission. The commission itself stalled after reaching agreement on the size of the problem that needed to be addressed. As a commission, that was as far as it got.’” – Laura Haltzel, Century Foundation, 10/18/23
Former House Budget Committee chairman John Yarmouth (D-KY) testified that “unelected commissions” do not have “superhuman powers.” And, he added, “They do not have souls.”
Read NCPSSM’s Viewpoint about the Greenspan Commission here.
Reassurance & Warning at Social Security Town Hall in Las Vegas
The message at Thursday’s NCPSSM/AARP town hall in Las Vegas was: the government may temporarily shut down on September 30th, but Social Security is here to stay. The town hall, entitled “Social Security: Here Today, Here Tomorrow,” was an opportunity for nearly 100 Las Vegas residents to hear from some of the nation’s leading experts about the enduring value of Social Security — and to receive reassurance that benefits still will be paid during a shutdown.
“We believe it is especially important to be holding this town hall here in Las Vegas,” said AARP Nevada State Director, Maria Moore. “Nevada has 565,000 Social Security beneficiaries, including over 30,000 children.” Moore also pointed out that Social Security benefits inject $9 billion each year into the state’s economy.
The Las Vegas event was one of a series of town halls that AARP and NCPSSM are holding across the country this year as part of a public education campaign to enhance Americans’ knowledge about the program. “Social Security isn’t only a retirement program,” said moderator Jon Ralston (of the Nevada Independent) in welcoming the audience to the town hall. “It is social insurance for families, providing financial support after the loss of a family breadwinner’s income through retirement, disability, or death.”
Jon Ralston, founder of the Nevada Independent, moderated the town hall
The town hall came as time was running short for Congress to avert a likely government shutdown on September 30. A shutdown would not directly impact Social Security benefits, but could put additional strain on the already underfunded Social Security Administration (SSA). Annie Walters, public affairs specialist at the SSA Nevada office and a panelist at the town hall, said that making sure benefits are paid is a “priority” for SSA. “Our plan is that benefits will go out,” she told the audience.
Walters said that SSA’s contingency plan is designed to ensure that critical customer service issues still are addressed during a shutdown. However, she said, it may be difficult for beneficiaries to obtain benefit verification letters if the government shuts down, because that is not considered a “critical” service.
SSA has been struggling to provide adequate customer service for more than a decade thanks to chronic underfunding that began with the Tea Party-fomented debt limit crisis in 2011. Former acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin told the town hall audience that SSA needs more funding to better serve the public.
NCPSSM President and CEO Max Richtman busted several myths about Social Security, such as “Social Security is going bankrupt”; “Illegal immigrants are collecting Social Security”; or that Social Security is an “entitlement.” “It is not an ‘entitlement.’ It’s an earned benefit,” he said.
Richtman warned against proposals in Congress that would cut Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age to 69 or 70. “Just because some people are living longer doesn’t mean all Americans can work longer. Raising the age is a benefit cut, plain and simple,” he said.
He also pushed back against Congressional proposals to create a special commission to scrutinize Social Security on the false assumption that it contributes to the debt. (Social Security is completely self-funded and does not add a penny to the debt.) Speaker Kevin McCarthy reportedly is including a fiscal commission in the House Republicans’ stopgap funding bill.
“If recommendations from a commission are bundled together and enacted quickly, it allows Congress to avoid political accountability,” Richtman told the audience. He said that some members of Congress want “political cover” to cut benefits, knowing that Social Security is enormously popular with voters.
Nearly 100 Nevadans attended the AARP/NCPSSM town hall in Las Vegas on 9/28/23
Attendees of the town hall included retirees and Nevadans who are still working. Rebecca McDuffie, an inventory control clerk, said she attended in hopes of finding out “What is the right time to claim benefits?” She also seeks reassurance that Social Security will be around by the time she retires.
Davina Koehler, a retired kitchen manager for the county school system, had questions about the amount of her Social Security survivor’s benefit. Others asked, “If I collect VA benefits, does it affect my Social Security benefits.” (The answer: no.) Also: “Do I get a lower benefit if I continue working?” (Before full retirement age, benefits can be reduced if you’re working; after full retirement age, there are no limits on how much you can earn through employment.)
Representatives from the offices of Senator Catherine Cortes Masto (D-NV) and Rep. Dina Titus’ (D-NV) were on hand to respond to attendees’ questions. Former Commissioner Colvin urged everyone to set up a My Social Security account for more information about their current or future benefits.
The final “Social Security: Here Today, Here Tomorrow” town hall will take place in Milwaukee, WI on November 1, 2023.
For more information about the campaign, visit www.socialsecurityheretoday.org
Would a Government Shutdown Affect Social Security and Medicare?
First, the good news. Even if the government shuts down at the end of this week because of House Republican intransigence, Social Security benefits will continue to be paid and customer service for retirees should not get significantly worse – in the short term, anyway. Medicare benefits would not be affected, either — but beneficiaries would be unable to obtain replacement Medicare cards during a shutdown. (Social Security cards would still be available, but benefit verifications will not.)
Now, the bad news. The impending shutdown is symptomatic of a disorder in Congress that seniors should care about: MAGA hardliners once again gumming up the works of a government which best serves the public when operating smoothly, without needless disruptions. (See last spring’s default crisis, promulgated by the House GOP.) Many of these are the same House Republicans who have proposed to cut Social Security. The MAGA faction also wants to slash the already underfunded Social Security Administration’s (SSA) budget by 8%, which could have devastating effects on customer service.
Fortunately, Social Security benefits would continue to be paid during a shutdown because they are considered by law to be mandatory spending. (It should be noted that GOP Senator Ron Johnson proposed in 2022 that Social Security and Medicare no longer be considered mandatory.) Any Social Security Administration employees with a role in administering Social Security benefits are considered “essential personnel” and would not be furloughed during a shutdown. But these workers will not be paid until the shutdown is over. Some 8,500 of SSA’s 62,000 employees would be furloughed as “non-essential,” according to NCPSSM’s senior Social Security analyst, Maria Freese.
“Anything that slows the process down, and makes it more challenging, is something that everybody ought to worry about. This is an agency with over 60,000 employees — none of whom is going to get paid during a shutdown. Yes, the agency will continue to function. But it costs the government money as the agency falls further behind” – Maria Freese, NCPSSM senior Social Security analyst
While retirement benefits should remain largely unscathed, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) determinations could be affected by a shutdown. Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities told CBS News that state-level offices that determine eligibility for disability benefits may close, as they have in the past. “Because there are already huge backlogs in SSDI disability decisions, a government shutdown could worsen delays,” Romig said.
The House and Senate are running out of time to pass legislation (known as a “continuing resolution” or CR) to keep the government open past the end of the fiscal year on September 30th. “Sometime between now and the end of the week, the House would have to pass a CR, and there’s no agreement on how to do that,” said Freese. This is largely because MAGA House Republicans have demanded painful spending cuts (along with several spurious and unrelated demands). House Speaker Kevin McCarthy does not have the support within his own caucus to pass a CR, and he has so far been unwilling to work with Democrats to amass enough votes to avoid a shutdown.
Last week, we asked Maria Freese why some House Republicans seem perfectly willing to shut the government down for ideological reasons, regardless of the impact on everyday Americans. “I like to hope that they are simply unaware of the hardships that shutdowns cause to their own constituents, as some Republicans have said publicly that they don’t believe anyone would notice or care if the government closed,” said Freese. ” I believe this kind of cavalier attitude about our government demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation for the many services agencies like SSA provide to the average American senior.”
House GOP Spending Proposal Would Slash Social Security Administration Funding
House Republicans have agreed on a short-term measure to avert a government shutdown. They propose a continuing resolution (CR) that would run through the end of October. The proposed CR includes an overall cut in spending of 1% for those 31 days, but fully protects defense, veterans and disaster relief funding. That means an 8% spending cut from current funding for all other agencies, including the Social Security Administration (SSA). We spoke to NCPSSM senior legislative representative, Maria Freese, about what this means for the beleaguered SSA and the millions of claimants who rely on it.
Q: What would an 8% cut in the operating budget of SSA do to the SSA? What impact would that have on customer service?
A: Of course we don’t know exactly what the impact of any cut will be on SSA, but we do know they have already requested an increase of $727 million above current funding, as a minimum, for FY 2024. Without this level of funding, they will be forced to reduce staffing and overtime, which will hurt the agency’s ability to serve the public. Without that minimum level of funding, SSA’s customers will wait significantly longer for field office services, disability decisions, and phone support. A cut in funding will only make the problem worse, especially as the agency will have little time to plan for and implement such a drastic cut.
Q: If anything, SSA Needs a funding BOOST, doesn’t it?
A: Absolutely. We still have an average of 10,000 baby boomers reaching retirement age every day, which means demand for services from SSA continues to increase. When combined with the impact of inflation, it’s clear the agency needs more money to operate. Not only do they need to keep up with an increasing current demand, but decades of underfunding have left the agency with significant backlogs that they need to address. About 110,000 Americans have already died over the last decade waiting for disability determinations from SSA, a problem which will only get worse if the agency continues to be underfunded.
Q: How much of a funding increase would NCPSSM like to see SSA receive?
A: At a minimum, we support the Administration’s request of $15.5 billion for FY 2024, an amount which would help the agency keep up with current demand while continuing to reduce backlogs and update its technology. This is still a billion dollars below what the agency itself believes it needs to do its job adequately, but well above any of the funding levels being considered by Congress.
Q: Also, isn’t SSA supposed to be funded mainly through payroll taxes? So why slash it? Haven’t workers already paid for these services, in effect?
A: Yes, that is one of the truly frustrating things about SSA’s funding conundrum. SSA is fully funded by workers’ payroll taxes but unfortunately, (for accounting purposes) the agency is technically ‘on budget.’ This means that although SSA operations have already been paid for by American workers with every paycheck, the agency still must compete with every other government service for funding.
Q: What does it say about House Republicans’ priorities that they want to exempt military spending from cuts but are anxious to slash domestic spending like SSA operations in exchange for keeping the government open?
A: I like to hope that they are simply unaware of the hardships that shutdowns cause to their own constituents, as some Republicans have said publicly that they don’t believe anyone would notice or care if the government closed. I believe this kind of cavalier attitude about our government demonstrates a lack of understanding and appreciation for the many services agencies like SSA provide to the average American senior.
Q: NCPSSM has previously said that a shutdown, if it happens, would negatively impact SSA services. Is that still the case?
A: Yes, though the extent of the impact will partly depend on the length of the shutdown. Most SSA employees are exempt from the furloughs required during a government shutdown because the law requires that Social Security checks continue to be paid. Any employee essential to ensuring that those benefits are paid remains on the job. But agency employees are limited in the functions they can perform during a shutdown, so some services, such as the processing of disability claims, inevitably would be impacted.