Author: Nancy Altman

Wait to claim Social Security benefits, if possible
You have earned your Social Security benefits. You should claim them when it meets your personal circumstances. For most people, though, it is best to wait as long as possible (though there is no reason to delay beyond age 70).

Although people often talk about a single retirement age, it is best to think about Social Security as having a band of ages. The earliest you can claim retirement benefits is age 62. For every month you delay up to age 70, your monthly benefit is larger – larger for the rest of your life!

The intention is for benefits to be actuarially neutral, so that your decision whether to retire and claim benefits is made independent of the size of the benefit. However, one of the enormous values of Social Security is that it is payable not only for the rest of your life but for the rest of your spouse’s life. Unlike savings and other assets, which can disappear as you age, Social Security is indexed against inflation and you cannot outlive it. Delaying receipt ensures not only that your monthly payments will be as large as possible when you are very old and likely need them most, but also as large as possible for your widow(er).

Of course, some people don’t have a job or savings at 62. In that case, people have no choice but to claim their Social Security benefits as soon as possible. Other people suffer from serious medical conditions at 62, are unmarried, and might not live long enough to benefit from delaying their Social Security benefits. But, anyone who has no reason to collect their Social Security checks early, should not do so.

Some people are simply risk averse, but some claim early because they have heard Social Security is going bankrupt. The truth is that Social Security has never missed a payment in its nearly 90-year history and almost certainly never will. Those scare stories should not scare you into claiming early, against your financial interest.

In addition to educating people about the many advantages to delaying, there are legislative improvements that should be made. While the actuarial adjustments are intended to be fair and neutral, there are strong arguments that those who retire early have their benefits reduced too much and those who retire later have their benefits increased too much. Congress should correct that.

Congress also should increase the overall level of Social Security benefits, so that even those who retire early have a benefit that is adequate for an independent dignified old age. And Congress should update the measure of inflation, so benefits retain their value, as they are intended to do.

Again, Social Security benefits are earned benefits but if you can delay claiming them, you are almost always right to do so. For the same conclusion argued somewhat differently, see Peter Coy’s opinion piece for the New York Times.

Here’s more from Just Care:
November 13, 2024
Harris and Walz: “We’re not going back!” on Medicare and Social Security
Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, have proclaimed, “We’re not going back!” Seniors and our families agree. We are definitely not going back on Social Security, Medicare, or drug prices. Rather, we are going forward. Forward to expanded Social Security, expanded Medicare, and lower drug prices.

We’re not going back to half of all seniors with below-poverty incomes. Before Social Security, people worked as long as they could, but the fast pace of many jobs “wears out its workers with great rapidity,” a commentator noted in 1912. “The young, the vigorous, the adaptable, the supple of limb, the alert of mind, are in demand,” he explained. “Middle age is old age.”

Once a job was lost, an older worker could seldom find a new one. Parents, as they aged, routinely moved in with their adult children. Those who had no children or whose children were unable or unwilling to support them wound up in the poorhouse. Literally. The poorhouse was not some ancient Dickensian invention; it was a very real means of subsistence for elderly people in the world before Social Security.

We are going forward. Forward to expanded Social Security, expanded Medicare, and lower drug prices.

When Social Security became law, every state but New Mexico had poorhouses. The vast majority of the residents were elderly. Most of the “inmates,” as they were generally labeled, entered the poorhouse late in life, having been independent wage earners until that point. In 1910, a Massachusetts Commission found that 92 percent of the residents entered after age 60.

The poorhouse was a fate to be dreaded. Even in as progressive a state as New York, the conditions were abysmal. In 1930, the New York State Commission on Old Age Security found that “worthy people are thrown together with whatever dregs of society happen to need the institution’s shelter at the moment…Privacy, even in the most intimate affairs of life, is impossible; married couples are quite generally separated; and all the inmates are regimented as though in a prison or penal colony.”

A return to that may seem impossible, but it is not. If Social Security did not exist today, more than forty percent of those aged 65 and over would once again have below-poverty incomes.

We’re not going back! Before Social Security, the death of one parent frequently meant the breakup of a family. Orphanages housed children with a living parent who had been unable to afford them, when the other parent died. People who became disabled and could no longer work routinely could be found begging in the street.

Those families now have guaranteed monthly benefits, thanks to Social Security, which lifts almost a million children and more than 5.3 million adults between the ages of 18 and 65 out of poverty. And our Social Security system lessens the depth of poverty for millions more.

Republicans want to take us back. They want to end Medicare as we know it.

But Republican politicians want to take us back. They have put out plans that not only would cut Social Security, but end it as we know it. We cannot let them take us back.

Instead of going backwards, we can and must go forward. Vice President Kamala Harris and her Democratic Party have plans to expand Social Security for seniors, for those with disabilities and for families experiencing the death of a provider.

In fact, when Harris was in the Senate, she was an original cosponsor of the Social Security Expansion Act, and when her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, was in the House of Representatives, he was an original cosponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act. Both bills expand benefits across-the-board, update the cost of living adjustment, so benefits don’t erode over time, expand benefits in other important ways, and ensure that those benefits can be paid on time and in full for the foreseeable future, by requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.

And we’re not going back to a time without guaranteed government-provided health insurance for seniors and people with disabilities. Before President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965, most seniors were not able to find health insurance at any cost. For those who could, the coverage was inadequate and the cost was exorbitant.

We can and must go forward. Harris and her Democratic colleagues want to expand Medicare. The essential benefits of vision, hearing and dental services must be added and the need for supplemental insurance must be eliminated. And Medicare should be extended to children and all ages in between.

We’re not going back to Big Pharma ripping off Medicare beneficiaries. For years, politicians promised to rein in Big Pharma and empower Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. The Biden-Harris administration got it done.

If you too are determined to not go back on these important freedoms, the choice in November is clear.

Republicans want to take us back. They want to end Medicare as we know it. They want to replace it with vouchers, forcing seniors to fend for themselves in a hostile marketplace. Additionally, they have promised to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act and let Big Pharma charge whatever outrageously high prescription drug prices they decide. We’re not going back to Medicare beneficiaries paying more than $35 per month out-of-pocket for insulin. We’re not going back to Medicare beneficiaries paying more than $2,000 out-of-pocket per year for Medicare Part D prescription drug spending.

Instead, we will go forward to a future of even lower prices for even more prescription drugs. And that future must include providing those lower prices for all Americans.

We’re not going back to a world without the Affordable Care Act. We’re not going back to a world without Medicaid expansion, without coverage for “pre-existing conditions.”

That is just some of what is at stake in November.

We’re not going back to a world where Republicans hand out tax breaks to billionaires. We want to protect Social Security and expand benefits, paid for by requiring billionaires and other uber-wealthy to pay their fair share.

Social Security Works is proud to stand with Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Walz in the fight for freedom. The freedom to retire with dignity and independence. The freedom to get the medical care we need. The freedom to get the drugs our doctors prescribe.

If you too are determined to not go back on these important freedoms, the choice in November is clear. Let’s unite and usher in a future that takes us forward together.

Here’s more from Just Care:
August 14, 2024
Donald Trump’s threat to Medicare and Social Security
Donald Trump was the worst president for seniors in the history of the nation. That is not hyperbole. Alarmingly, if elected again, he will be even worse—and, worryingly, more effective.

When Trump ran for president in 2016, he claimed he would be the one Republican not to cut our earned benefits but, when he actually became president, every single one of his budgets proposed deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid.

When Trump couldn’t get the cuts enacted, he employed the old tactic of “starve the beast.” Figuring tax cuts are easier to enact than benefit cuts, he cut income taxes which help to fund Medicare and Medicaid, and sought to defund Social Security, which has its own dedicated revenue source.

To advance his goal of undermining Social Security, Donald Trump grabbed the questionable power to go after its dedicated revenue unilaterally—something without precedent. Because Trump was limited to executive action, he was able to only defer the revenue, but he made clear that he would not just defer the revenue, but eliminate it, if he were re-elected. Insufficient dedicated revenue leads to automatic cuts. Conveniently, automatic cuts means there is no one to clearly be held accountable.

Trump’s goals to undermine these programs, so vital to seniors, have not changed. Trump continues to claim he won’t cut benefits despite his record to the contrary, but tells the truth from time to time. Moreover, he is reportedly considering, once again, defunding Social Security, if he has the chance. Trump also plans to continue to give his billionaire friends massive tax giveaways.

And we know what those cuts will look like. The Republican Study Committee, which includes 80 percent of all House Republicans and 100 percent of House Republican leadership, releases a budget every year. Every year, it contains deep, draconian cuts and radical transformative proposals for Social Security. Indeed, its recently-released FY 2025 budget slashes Social Security’s already inadequate benefits by $1.5 trillion in just the first ten years. In fact, it cuts Social Security by $73 billion in the first year alone.

These are much deeper cuts than are necessary to eliminate Social Security’s modest projected shortfall. And they would occur much sooner than if Congress did nothing whatsoever! Even worse, the Republican proposal would radically transform Social Security, ending it as we know it.

Social Security provides wage-related benefits designed to maintain one’s standard of living when wages are lost in the event of old age, disability, or death. Today’s extreme Republicans want to instead provide only subsistence-level benefits, designed to barely keep beneficiaries above abject poverty. And these radicals propose to privatize Social Security and Medicare, on top of that.

For years, politicians have talked about giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. Biden got it done. Thanks to Biden, out-of-pocket insulin costs have been capped at $35 per month, hearing aids are cheaper, and inhaler prices are lower. If Trump wins a second term, he has made clear he will seek to repeal those reforms, just as he sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Nor will Medicaid be spared.

None of this should be a surprise. Before running for president, Trump slandered Social Security by calling it a Ponzi scheme – an illegal enterprise used to dupe and defraud the unsuspecting. He supported privatizing Social Security and raising the retirement age, with the condescending remark, “how many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon?”

Before running, Trump praised proposals by former Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan that would have destroyed Medicare by turning it into a voucher program, forcing seniors to fend for themselves in a hostile market.

And there’s more evidence of Donald Trump’s true plans. Look who Trump surrounded – and continues to surround – himself with. Everyone around Trump is hostile to these programs.

In 2016, Donald Trump picked Mike Pence to be his running mate, despite the fact that Pence had a clear record of favoring cuts to these programs, including raising the retirement age and privatizing our earned benefits. Pence wouldn’t help Trump steal the 2020 election so he is being replaced – but not because of his policy views on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those who are reportedly being considered have as hostile or even worse views than Pence.

And Trump’s other appointments were no better. Just to name two, Trump appointed extreme Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid opponent Mick Mulvaney as his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and later chief of staff. Mark Meadows, another Trump chief of staff (currently under indictment) also has a long record of supporting massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Perhaps even more concerning than Trump’s hostility to programs that are vital to seniors is his utter disregard for their health and well-being. It was seniors who overwhelmingly bore the brunt of Trump’s completely incompetent handling of the COVID pandemic. Too many Americans, disproportionately seniors, died because of Trump.

Rather than deal effectively with the pandemic, Trump’s administration shockingly used it to further Trump’s goal of undermining Social Security. At the height of the pandemic, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner proposed pressuring desperate Americans, thrown out of work because of the impact and dangers of COVID, to trade their earned Social Security benefits for upfront, immediate cash. Fortunately, it went nowhere, but did show a single-minded effort to rip away the protections of Social Security despite where the focus should have been – on saving lives.

It is essential that the American people not be fooled by the rhetoric. Trump has shown he understands how unpopular cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, cutting Medicaid, and raising drug prices are with everyone but his billionaire donors. But he showed early on that he understood the politics. In 2011, for example, Trump told Sean Hannity that Republicans “are going to lose elections” if they “fall into the Democratic trap” of advocating cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid without bipartisan cover.

So don’t be fooled. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and drug prices are on November’s ballot. Donald Trump will be more effective this time around. The choice is clear: Trump and his Republican allies in Congress want to cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, and increase the already-huge profits of drug companies while giving tax breaks to Big Pharma and their other billionaire friends. Democrats want to expand Social Security, expand Medicare, lower drug prices, and force billionaires and multinational corporations to pay their fair share.

For the sake of all of our economic security, it is essential that the American people, and seniors in particular, understand this fundamental difference between the two parties and vote accordingly.

[This post was originally published on Common Dreams.]

Here’s more from Just Care:
July 3, 2024
Social Security’s future is on the ballot in 2024

Every year, Social Security’s Board of Trustees issues a report detailing Social Security’s long-term financial outlook. This year’s report, like all its predecessors, shows that Social Security’s future is a question of values and choices, not affordability. It is a reminder that Congress must take action on Social Security sometime in the next 11 years — and our country’s two major political parties have very different visions for our Social Security system.

Democrats want to protect and expand Social Security, and pay for it by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share. Republicans want to slash Social Security’s already modest benefits, while giving massive tax handouts to the ultra-wealthy.

These competing visions should be front and center in voters’ minds because the trustees report projects that Congress must take action to prevent Social Security’s benefits from being automatically reduced by 17 percent in 2035.

There is no question that Congress will act. Around one in five Americans receive monthly Social Security benefits. That is one in three households. If benefits were suddenly slashed, not only would members of Congress lose re-election, they likely wouldn’t be able to appear in public without being screamed at and chased down the street!

The real question isn’t whether Congress will act, but what action it will take. We know what Democrats will do if they control Congress and the White House, because their position is open and transparent. It is clearly spelled out in legislation that has been introduced in Congress, in President Biden’s budget which states plainly that he supports those legislative efforts, and in the 2020 Democratic Platform.

These proposals have broad support within the Democratic Party, from progressives to moderates. They are also bipartisan in the way that matters — overwhelming support from Democratic, Republican, and independent voters.

Republicans are less open about their position, but a recent budget released by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group that comprises about 80 percent of House Republicans (including every member of Republican leadership), reveals the truth. It slashes Social Security benefits by $1.5 trillion in just the next 10 years. The budget’s cuts include raising the retirement age and decimating middle class benefits. The very same budget also includes trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy and giant corporations!

The RSC budget, while cloaked in vague and intentionally misleading language, is still more honest than usual. Generally, Republicans don’t openly endorse Social Security cuts, because they know how unpopular they are even with their own voters. Instead, they talk in Orwellian language about “saving” or “strengthening” Social Security. They want Americans to think that we can no longer afford Social Security, despite the ridiculousness of that claim, in the hope that their constituents will be grateful — not furious — when they receive at least some of their earned benefits.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was uncharacteristically honest when he recently said, “There is a lot you can do… in terms of cutting” Social Security. Knowing how unpopular cuts are, Trump generally denies he wants to cut benefits. When he was president, though, he included Social Security cuts in every one of his budgets. And prior to running for president, he called for raising the retirement age and privatizing Social Security while labeling it a Ponzi scheme. He has also advocated cutting Social Security’s dedicated funding. This could lead to even deeper benefit cuts down the road, but Trump knows cutting taxes is more popular than cutting benefits.

Trump and his fellow Republicans recognize the unpopularity of their positions. That’s why many of them seek to lure Democrats to join them (hold hands and jump, as they often phrase it) in cutting benefits behind closed doors so that they can share the blame or, even better, confuse voters into blaming Democrats.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Democrats are not taking the bait. But the danger is there. Every so often, Congress must pass legislation to prevent the nation from defaulting on its debts. If the United States ever did default, it would trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe.

The last time Congress voted to avoid default, Republicans tried to hold Social Security hostage, demanding benefit cuts in return for their votes. Fortunately, President Biden called their bluff and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy folded – infuriating many of his House colleagues.

The next Congress will need to vote to raise the debt ceiling again. And to avert another attempt to take Social Security hostage, it matters who controls the House, Senate, and White House.

If Democrats retake the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries will be speaker. Jeffries will ensure that the House passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts to Social Security or any other vital benefits. And President Biden will unquestionably sign it. Indeed, he has promised to protect Social Security against cuts.

Moreover, Jeffries is a cosponsor of legislation to protect and expand Social Security. As Speaker, Jeffries will certainly bring that legislation up for a vote. When that happens, Republican members of Congress will be in a bind. They won’t want to require their billionaire donors to pay more, they won’t want to vote against Social Security, and they won’t want to offer their own alternative.

If the American people are clear on where their members stand and vote accordingly, Congress will enact legislation to protect and expand Social Security well before 2035. Once that happens, the annual trustees report will reveal that Social Security can pay all earned benefits for the foreseeable future.Every year, Social Security’s Board of Trustees issues a report detailing Social Security’s long-term financial outlook. This year’s report, like all its predecessors, shows that Social Security’s future is a question of values and choices, not affordability. It is a reminder that Congress must take action on Social Security sometime in the next 11 years — and our country’s two major political parties have very different visions for our Social Security system.

Democrats want to protect and expand Social Security, and pay for it by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share. Republicans want to slash Social Security’s already modest benefits, while giving massive tax handouts to the ultra-wealthy.

These competing visions should be front and center in voters’ minds because the trustees report projects that Congress must take action to prevent Social Security’s benefits from being automatically reduced by 17 percent in 2035.

There is no question that Congress will act. Around one in five Americans receive monthly Social Security benefits. That is one in three households. If benefits were suddenly slashed, not only would members of Congress lose re-election, they likely wouldn’t be able to appear in public without being screamed at and chased down the street!

The real question isn’t whether Congress will act, but what action it will take. We know what Democrats will do if they control Congress and the White House, because their position is open and transparent. It is clearly spelled out in legislation that has been introduced in Congress, in President Biden’s budget which states plainly that he supports those legislative efforts, and in the 2020 Democratic Platform.

These proposals have broad support within the Democratic Party, from progressives to moderates. They are also bipartisan in the way that matters — overwhelming support from Democratic, Republican, and independent voters.

Republicans are less open about their position, but a recent budget released by the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group that comprises about 80 percent of House Republicans (including every member of Republican leadership), reveals the truth. It slashes Social Security benefits by $1.5 trillion in just the next 10 years. The budget’s cuts include raising the retirement age and decimating middle class benefits. The very same budget also includes trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy and giant corporations!

The RSC budget, while cloaked in vague and intentionally misleading language, is still more honest than usual. Generally, Republicans don’t openly endorse Social Security cuts, because they know how unpopular they are even with their own voters. Instead, they talk in Orwellian language about “saving” or “strengthening” Social Security. They want Americans to think that we can no longer afford Social Security, despite the ridiculousness of that claim, in the hope that their constituents will be grateful — not furious — when they receive at least some of their earned benefits.

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was uncharacteristically honest when he recently said, “There is a lot you can do… in terms of cutting” Social Security. Knowing how unpopular cuts are, Trump generally denies he wants to cut benefits. When he was president, though, he included Social Security cuts in every one of his budgets. And prior to running for president, he called for raising the retirement age and privatizing Social Security while labeling it a Ponzi scheme. He has also advocated cutting Social Security’s dedicated funding. This could lead to even deeper benefit cuts down the road, but Trump knows cutting taxes is more popular than cutting benefits.

Trump and his fellow Republicans recognize the unpopularity of their positions. That’s why many of them seek to lure Democrats to join them (hold hands and jump, as they often phrase it) in cutting benefits behind closed doors so that they can share the blame or, even better, confuse voters into blaming Democrats.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Democrats are not taking the bait. But the danger is there. Every so often, Congress must pass legislation to prevent the nation from defaulting on its debts. If the United States ever did default, it would trigger a world-wide economic catastrophe.

The last time Congress voted to avoid default, Republicans tried to hold Social Security hostage, demanding benefit cuts in return for their votes. Fortunately, President Biden called their bluff and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy folded – infuriating many of his House colleagues.

The next Congress will need to vote to raise the debt ceiling again. And to avert another attempt to take Social Security hostage, it matters who controls the House, Senate, and White House.

If Democrats retake the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries will be speaker. Jeffries will ensure that the House passes a bill to raise the debt ceiling with no cuts to Social Security or any other vital benefits. And President Biden will unquestionably sign it. Indeed, he has promised to protect Social Security against cuts.

Moreover, Jeffries is a cosponsor of legislation to protect and expand Social Security. As Speaker, Jeffries will certainly bring that legislation up for a vote. When that happens, Republican members of Congress will be in a bind. They won’t want to require their billionaire donors to pay more, they won’t want to vote against Social Security, and they won’t want to offer their own alternative.

If the American people are clear on where their members stand and vote accordingly, Congress will enact legislation to protect and expand Social Security well before 2035. Once that happens, the annual trustees report will reveal that Social Security can pay all earned benefits for the foreseeable future.

May 15, 2024
The 2024 Trustees Report shows that Social Security is benefiting from a strong economy
The 2024 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, released today, shows that our Social Security system remains fully affordable.

This year’s report announces that, thanks to a strong and growing economy, Social Security can pay all benefits and associated administrative costs in full until 2035, one year later than projected in last year’s report. After that, it can pay 83 percent percent of benefits, also an improvement over last year — even if Congress were to do the unimaginable, and take no action whatsoever.

Social Security has an accumulated surplus of $2.79 trillion. It is 90 percent funded for the next quarter century, 83 percent for the next half century, and 81 percent for the next three quarters of a century. At the end of the century, in 2100, Social Security is projected to cost just 6.1 percent of gross domestic product (“GDP”).

The following is a statement on the report from Nancy Altman, President of>Social Security Works:

“Today’s report shows that our Social Security system is benefiting from the Biden economy. Due to robust job growth, low unemployment, and rising wages, more people than ever are contributing to Social Security and earning its needed protections. As a result, Social Security can pay all promised benefits until 2035, one year longer than projected in last year’s report, and 83 percent of benefits thereafter, also an improvement over last year — even if Congress takes no action whatsoever.

That said, Congress should take action sooner rather than later to ensure that Social Security can pay full benefits for generations to come, along with expanding Social Security’s modest benefits. That will restore one of the most important benefits Social Security is intended to provide to the American people — a sense of security.

Congressional Democrats have introduced several plans that would do just that. These plans are paid for by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute more of their fair share. That is particularly appropriate since, according to Social Security’s chief actuary, rising inequality is the primary unanticipated reason that Social Security faces a funding shortfall in a decade. That inequality has cost Social Security $1.4 trillion over the last decade.

Proposals to protect and expand Social Security are bipartisan in the only way that really matters — they have
strong support from Republican and independent voters, as well as Democrats. In contrast, 92 percent of voters oppose cutting benefits.

President Biden is listening to the American people. As today’s report shows, Biden’s economic policies are already strengthening Social Security — and he understands that more is needed. His most recent budget calls for protecting and expanding Social Security by requiring the wealthiest to contribute their fair share.

In contrast, Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people. The most recent budget of the Republican Study Committee, which consists of about three quarters of House Republicans, contains over $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security in just the next ten years. These cuts include raising the retirement age and deeply slashing middle-class benefits, radically transforming Social Security towards a flat, poverty-level pittance instead of an earned benefit.

It’s not just Congressional Republicans. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, despite his protestations to the contrary, also supports benefit cuts. He also favors slashing Social Security’s dedicated revenue. In addition, Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in.

Ultimately, the question of whether to expand or cut Social Security’s modest benefits is a question of values and choice, not affordability. The United States is the wealthiest nation on Earth at the wealthiest moment in our history. We can use that wealth to protect and expand Social Security, or to provide yet more tax handouts to billionaires.

This report is a reminder that the next decade is a crucial one for Social Security’s future. Americans should vote accordingly this November.”

Here’s more from Just Care:
May 6, 2024
Nancy Altman testifies in Congress on the importance of strengthening Social Security
Testimony of Nancy Altman before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Ways and Means Committee, April 16, 2024

Chairman Ferguson, Ranking Member Larson, and Members of the Subcommittee:

You should repeal WEP /GPO as one of the many ways that you should expand Social Security. [NB: The Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset can reduce Social Security benefits for some people.]

Social Security is the nation’s most universal, efficient, secure, and fair source of retirement income. It is most working families’ largest source of life insurance. It is often their only disability insurance. Its one shortcoming is that its vital benefits are inadequately low even for those not subject to WEP/GPO.

Social Security benefits should be increased across the board, as the 2100 Act, the Strengthening Social Security Act, and the Social Security Expansion Act all do. In addition, Congress should repeal WEP/GPO and make the other targeted expansions that I explain in detail in my written statement and that many of you have championed. They include improvements for women, low-income workers, young people, people with disabilities, survivors, and others.

All of that is completely affordable, but there is a right way and a wrong way to cover that cost.

The right way is to require millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. If they contributed just on their earned and unearned income in excess of $400,000; and they contributed at simply the same rate that minimum wage workers and their employers contribute to Social Security, that raises enough revenue to restore Social Security to balance, repeal WEP/GPO, and expand benefits in other ways, as well.

The absolute wrong way is to cut the very Social Security benefits that public servants are fighting for. The Republican Study Committee budget slashes Social Security by $1.5 trillion in just the first ten years, and by $73 billion in just the first year alone. Indeed, the RSC’s annual budgets will leave public servants, along with all other working families, substantially worse off — even if Congress repeals WEP/GPO.

In my written statement, I calculate the impact of just three of the RSC cuts. I take the example of a public employee who today gets a benefit of just $649. If WEP were repealed, the benefit would jump to $1,038. But, if those three RSC cuts were in effect, that $1,038 monthly benefit would be just $410 a month. That is $7,500 a year less. And it is nearly $3,000 a year less than the employee gets today, with WEP!

Instead of repeal, if you simply modify WEP/GPO, you should not do so in a way that results in some public employees worse off, as the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act does. Once fully phased in, that bill would cut the benefits of millions of public servants whose benefits are not affected at all by current law. For those public employees affected by current law, one-third of them would get lower benefits under the new, modified WEP.

If Republicans are going to continue to advance these devastating cuts, they should at least have the courage of their convictions. Instead, Speaker Johnson and Budget Committee Chairman Arrington are pushing for the creation of a commission with essentially the power to enact these unpopular cuts behind closed doors.

This is a thinly veiled effort to avoid political accountability. President Biden accurately labeled the commission a “death panel” for Social Security. The Ways and Means Committee, not a closed-door commission, is the right forum for Social Security legislation.

Overwhelming majorities of your constituents — Republicans, independents, and Democrats –vehemently oppose all benefit cuts and strongly support expanding Social Security, paid for by the wealthy. You can act with confidence in the open – if you act in accordance with the will of the people. If you expand Social Security’s benefits, including repealing WEP-GPO, and you pay for it by requiring the uber-wealthy to pay their fair share, you will receive widespread praise and the gratitude of the nation.

Thank you.

Here’s more from Just Care:
April 16, 2024
Social Security benefits up 3.2 percent in 2024
The nearly 67 million people receiving the Social Security benefits they have earned will see their Social Security benefits increased by 3.2 percent in 2024 to offset the effects of inflation. It is imperative to understand that, though the nominal dollar amount a retiree receives will go up by an average of $59, this is not an increase. It is designed to help ensure that Social Security benefits do not erode over time, that beneficiaries tread water. Without it, they would drown.

The automatic inflation adjustment every January is one of Social Security’s most important features—not found in its private sector counterparts. The inflation offset is much needed. Many older adults, people with disabilities and all other people receiving Social Security have seen their costs increase significantly over the last year. For example, prescription drug prices for more than 1200 drugs rose an average of 15.2 percent between January 2022 and January 2023, way higher than inflation.

As important as the automatic inflation adjustment is, it undermeasures the inflation older adults and other people receiving Social Security experience. That is because the cost of living adjustment for Social Security is based on inflation experienced by workers, not by retirees and people with disabilities who are unable to work.

That index, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), was the only measure that the government produced in 1972, when Congress wisely decided to automatically adjust Social Security benefits every year to prevent their erosion. Because that measure was the only one available, that was the best Congress could do. It was better than nothing.

But workers and the public more generally have significantly different spending patterns from people receiving Social Security benefits and, therefore, experience significantly lower inflation. Older adults and people with disabilities spend more on health care, prescription medications, and long-term care—where prices continue to rise faster. They spend less on clothing, recreation, the latest technology, and other items—where prices tend to rise more slowly—than younger, healthier Americans. An accurate inflation adjustment is particularly important for women, Hispanics, and others who have longer life expectancies, on average.

Many members of Congress recognized the obvious shortcomings of the CPI-W when applied to Social Security. In 1987, our policymakers instructed the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to produce an index measuring the cost of living of the elderly. In response, BLS developed the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), but Congress has not yet applied it to Social Security. It’s long past time to fix that. If it had applied the CPI-E this year, Social Security benefits would have increased 4.2 percent.

CPI-E is part of President Joe Biden’s plan to update and expand Social Security. It is the right policy. According to numerous polls, it also represents the will of the people. It is included in numerous bills to protect and expand Social Security, pending in Congress or soon to be introduced. One of those bills is the Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust Act, sponsored by Representative John Larson (D-CT), Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, and cosponsored by over 175 of his fellow Democrats.

As important as it is to update the measure, the truth is that Social Security’s underlying benefits are too low. Those benefits are modest by virtually any measure, yet they are vital.

A Gallup poll found that 89 percent of Americans receiving Social Security rely on it to cover their expenses. Three out of five people 55 and older rely on Social Security as their principal income. For one fourth of them, Social Security is virtually their only income. Our Social Security system lifts more than 21 million Americans—including over a million American children—out of poverty and lessens the depth of poverty of millions more.

As essential as Social Security is in good economic times, it has been even more so in economic downturns and other times of trouble. Unlike savings, one can’t outlive their Social Security. Indeed, in its nearly ninety-year history, Social Security has never missed a payment.

Fortunately, the president and the Democratic Party are championing the need to not only update the cost of living adjustment but also increase the underlying benefits. Unfortunately, no Republicans have, so far, either cosponsored one of the many pending bills that expand benefits and update the cost-of-living adjustment. Nor have they introduced their own.

In fact, Republican politicians in Congress seem bent on cutting Social Security, or worse, ending it as we know it. Republicans have advocated eliminating the ironclad guarantee of those earned benefits. Last year, for example, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) released a plan to require an affirmative vote on Social Security and Medicare every five years for these vital institutions to continue. Not to be outdone, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) wants to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every year.

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who was Speaker of the House, took hostage the need to raise the debt limit. As ransom, he wanted cuts to “entitlements,” insider code for cuts to our Social Security and Medicare. He almost wrecked the national economy to get his way. The Republican Study Committee, which includes 70 percent of House Republicans, has proposed raising the retirement age and decimating middle class benefits.

Revealingly, when President Biden called them out at the State of the Union, these Republicans claimed he was lying. Having apparently learned to not be so direct in their plans, they are now pushing a behind-closed-doors commission, which would report a plan for Social Security right after the election. If established, its recommendations would have priority over other legislative business. They couldn’t be amended. Indeed, Congress would be required to vote on the commission’s recommendations right after the upcoming election, which would allow incumbents running for re-election to deny their support of drastic cuts to Americans’ earned benefits — and then vote for those highly unpopular and unwise cuts in the lame duck Congress.

Those who support Social Security should contact their representatives and urge them to oppose any commissions. Rather, they should support expanding Social Security and updating its cost-of-living adjustment.

After lifetimes of work, Americans have earned their Social Security. It is well past time they get a raise. Once Americans begin to receive their earned Social Security, they should be able to rely on the fact that those benefits will not erode as they age, but will maintain their purchasing power, even if they live to 100 or older.

Here’s more from Just Care:
October 19, 2023
Congress must update insanely low asset limits for SSI benefits
Today, U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), along with Representatives Brian Higgins (D-NY-26) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-1), introduced the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act.

Social Security Works strongly endorses this important legislation and applauds its visionary cosponsors. The Supplemental Security Income program, a vital companion to Social Security, is a lifeline to millions of people with disabilities and seniors. Yet the last and only time Congress increased its stringent asset limits was forty years ago, in 1984. It is well past time that Congress update these limits, as the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act does.

As the name of the legislation indicates, the current, overly restrictive and out-of-date asset limits penalize savings. Even one dollar in savings above the limits of $2,000 for an individual or $3,000 for a couple results not just in the loss of SSI cash benefits but also can result in the loss of Medicaid, housing assistance, and other benefits. And the limits penalize marriage as well–married couples can only save three-fourths of the amount two individuals are allowed to save. Moreover, these stringent and intrusive limits are extremely costly for the Social Security Administration to administer.

Congress should immediately pass the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act into law. It should then eliminate the program’s other marriage penalties, as well as update and expand it in other ways.”

Here’s more from Just Care:
September 12, 2023
Honor US workers, increase Social Security benefits
On Labor Day, we celebrate the contributions of workers. The best way to honor those contributions is to increase their economic security. A key component of economic security is retirement security, which we can substantially improve by protecting and expanding Social Security for current and future generations of American workers.

Social Security and Medicare are deferred compensation. Just as we earn our current cash compensation, we earn our Social Security and Medicare with every paycheck. Sadly, too often these earnings are inadequate.

Today’s workers are facing a retirement income crisis, where too many will never be able to retire without drastic reductions in their standards of living. As traditional pensions continue to disappear, replaced (if they are) by riskier, less reliable, inadequate 401(k)s, Social Security is more vital to American workers’ economic security than ever.

While President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress want to protect and expand Social Security, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse.

Social Security has many strengths. It is extremely efficient, secure, nearly universal, excellent for both long-term and mobile workers, and fair. Its one shortcoming is that its benefits are too low. By expanding those modest Social Security benefits, we are renewing our promise to workers and promoting the security of all American workers for generations to come.

In recognition of Social Security’s increasing importance for workers and their families, several bills have been introduced during this Congress to expand Social Security’s modest benefits.

Representative John Larson’s (D-Conn.) Social Security 2100 Act, which has over 175 cosponsors, would increase benefits across-the-board for all current and future Social Security beneficiaries. It would improve the annual Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) to better match the true costs that seniors face. The bill would improve benefits for widows and widowers, students, children living with grandparents, public servants, the most elderly Americans, lower-income seniors, those with disabilities, students, and more. And it pays for all of this by making the wealthy finally pay their fair share.

Similarly, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have introduced the Social Security Expansion Act. Their proposal would increase Social Security benefits across-the-board by $200 a month and update the way that COLAs are determined to better reflect the costs seniors and other beneficiaries face. Further, it would update and increase the minimum Social Security benefit and restore student benefits. Again, it would pay for all of these increases and restore Social Security to long-range actuarial balance by requiring millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

Additional bills that would make positive changes to Social Security have been introduced as well. All of these bills not only address our nation’s looming retirement income crisis, but other challenges as well, including rising income and wealth inequality. In fact, rising inequality has cost Social Security billions of dollars each year. Those are billions of dollars that should go to expanding Social Security.

While President Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress want to protect and expand Social Security, Donald Trump and other Republican presidential candidates want to slash Social Security benefits—or worse.

As president, Trump released budget proposals that would cut Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office. He even attempted to defund Social Security by threatening to eliminate the system’s primary dedicated revenue source, payroll contributions. And, after leaving office, he stated that Social Security cuts are on the agenda if he is elected to a second term.

The other Republican presidential candidates are even more open about their designs on our earned Social Security. Former Vice President Mike Pence wants to raise the retirement age for younger Americans and privatize Social Security. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also wants to raise the retirement age for Social Security, and he wants to subject our earned Social Security benefits to a means test, transforming them from deferred compensation to welfare.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Tim Scott both supported Paul Ryan’s infamous Social Security and Medicare-cutting budget proposals when they were in Congress. Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley also wants to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security. Vivek Ramaswamy wants to get rid of civil service protections and fire 75% of federal employees. Imagine trying to get help from the Social Security Administration under a President Ramaswamy, with up to three-quarters of the SSA staff missing and out of action.

This is a moment to build upon the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the other founders of our visionary Social Security system, not a moment to undo the vast, essential gains to workers’ economic security represented by Social Security. The choice in the upcoming presidential election could not be starker.

Every generation has built on the strong foundation laid down 88 years ago, when Roosevelt—and his Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins (the first woman ever to serve in a presidential cabinet)—shepherded Social Security into law. Now it is our turn. Expanding Social Security is the best way to honor our nation’s workers in the Labor Days to follow this one.

[This post was originally published in Common Dreams on September 4, 2023]

Here’s more from Just Care:
September 5, 2023
Social Security turns 88 today; it’s time to expand its benefits
On August 14th, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law. Eighty-eight years later, our Social Security system is among the most successful and popular government programs in history. Nearly every worker pays premiums (Federal Insurance Contributions or FICA) for Social Security. In return, workers receive insurance benefits when they retire, become disabled, or lose a family breadwinner. Social Security is secure, efficient, and the most important source of retirement income for the vast majority of Americans. Social Security does have one major flaw, though: Benefits are too low.

The average Social Security benefit is only $1700 a month — considerably lower than in peer nations. That is not enough for working families to enjoy a secure retirement or make ends meet when tragedy strikes in the form of serious and permanent disabilities or death. It’s not surprising that our nation is facing a retirement income crisis. Too many Americans fear that they must work until they die, because they will not be able to retire without a drastic decline in their standard of living. Expanding Social Security is the solution.

Social Security Works was founded to fight the fearmongering about our Social Security system. Today is Social Security’s 88th birthday.

The good news is that Democrats have plans to expand our Social Security system. President Joe Biden ran on a promise to expand Social Security, and Congressional Democrats have introduced multiple bills to do so. One of these is the Social Security 2100 Act, which is sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-CT) and co-sponsored by over 175 of his fellow House Democrats. Another is the Social Security Expansion Act, which is sponsored by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

These bills, as well as numerous other expansion proposals, have much in common. They would keep Social Security strong for generations to come (averting the modest shortfall that some politicians have used as an excuse to demand benefit cuts). They would increase benefits for everyone, with additional targeted increases for low-income beneficiaries, family caregivers, the very old, and others. Additionally, they would update the annual cost-of-living adjustment to reflect the real expenses beneficiaries face and prevent benefits from eroding.

These are common sense proposals that enjoy broad support from Americans across the political spectrum. Indeed, 83 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents, and 73 percent of Republicans want to expand Social Security and pay for it by making the wealthy contribute their fair share. Yet, not a single Republican member of Congress is signed on to a bill expanding Social Security benefits.

We’ve gotten Republicans on the record―and helped defeat them when the public learns the truth.

The truth is, Republicans in Congress support cutting Social Security and ultimately ending the program as we know it. This is laid out in the budget proposal from the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group that counts about 70 percent of House Republicans as members.

The RSC budget would raise the retirement age to 69, which is mathematically equivalent to a 13 percent benefit cut. It would also decimate middle-class benefits — benefits those workers have earned and paid for. The Republican goal is to turn Social Security into a flat, poverty-level benefit — so that it loses political support and can be destroyed.

Nor is the RSC budget the only Republican plan to cut Social Security. Every major Republican Presidential candidate, including Donald Trump, is on the record supporting Social Security cuts. Republican politicians are ignoring the will of their voters in favor of protecting their wealthy donors.

Republicans have also been waging a quiet war on the Social Security Administration (SSA), the agency that administers the program. Since 2010, largely-Republican controlled Congresses have slashed SSA’s budget by 17 percent — even as the number of beneficiaries grew by 22 percent. This has forced the agency to lay off thousands of workers, close field offices, and reduce hours.

SSA needs adequate funding, and strong leadership. President Biden has nominated former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley to serve as SSA Commissioner. Biden has also requested a ten percent increase in funding for SSA. The best 88th birthday gifts Congress could give Social Security are to swiftly confirm O’Malley and grant Biden’s funding request.

Then, Congress should take up legislation to expand Social Security. If Republicans refuse, Democrats should make Social Security a major issue in next year’s election — and urge voters to support the party that is working to expand, instead of cut, their earned benefits.

Social Security is the cornerstone for our nation’s economic stability. Together, we can build on that cornerstone and bring prosperity to everyone in this country!

Here’s more from Just Care:
August 15, 2023