JustCare

Category: Social Security

  • DOGE causes chaos at Social Security

    DOGE causes chaos at Social Security

    Michael Sainato reports for The Guardian on the utter chaos at the Social Security Administration (SSA). DOGE, the “Department of Government Efficiency,” has been closing Social Security offices, firing employees, reducing phone and other Social Security services, reorganizing or closing departments, and changing Social Security policies. Employees are concerned that the SSA is in a “death spiral.”

    Social Security is the largest US government program. It administers retirement, disability, and survivor  social insurance benefits. Nearly 69 million Americans pay in to Social Security their entire working lives and expect benefits when they retire or become disabled.

    Social Security pays out about $1.6 trillion in benefits a year. It represents 22 percent of the federal budget. Tens of millions of American rely on Social Security exclusively or nearly exclusively for their income, when they are no longer able to work.

    But, Elon Musk and others do not appear to support Social Security and are crippling the Social Security Administration through budget and staffing cuts. They plan to cut 7,000 jobs at SSA, 12 percent of its workforce. As the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) explains, “Since almost all Social Security spending goes towards benefits, which are set by statute, gutting the agency won’t save money for participants.”

    If you’ve tried going onto the SSA web site this month, you might have found that it had crashed. DOGE is moving all Social Security data and rewriting code with seemingly little concern for the consequences of failing to successfully move the data or web site crashes.

    In response to a lawsuit, a judge has ordered that DOGE cannot access SSA data. But, the SSA acting commissioner is threatening to close down SSA if DOGE is barred from accessing SSA data.

    Millions of Americans’ income security is at risk. Social Security needs more staff, according to an Office of the Inspector General report from last year. The number of Social Security recipients has risen as our population has been aging. SSA had been spending less than 1 percent of its budget on administration. Moreover, Social Security pays for itself through people’s contributions, so the cost of its administration should not be an issue.

    In sum, Social Security benefits are set by Congress and paid for out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Americans earn these benefits, paying for them throughout their working lives. Firing workers at SSA will only save money by keeping people from getting their Social Security benefits, to which they are entitled.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • The cap on Social Security contributions must go

    The cap on Social Security contributions must go

    During the first week of January, billionaires in the US received an early Valentine. They stopped paying into Social Security for the rest of 2025 because they had hit the cap on payroll contributions, even though the vast majority of working Americans pay in to Social Security throughout the year. To bring fairness to Social Security payroll contributions, Congress should end the cap on Social Security contributions.

    Michael Hiltzik writes in an opinion piece for the LA Times that Tim Cook met his Social Security tax obligations at 2p on January 1, and Elon Musk met his obligations even earlier that day. But, 94 percent of Americans will contribute to Social Security throughout the year.

    Unlike most Americans, the wealthiest Americans also are able to shelter a lot of their income from Social Security contributions. They do not pay Social Security taxes on any income they earn above $176,100 this year. (Last year it was $168,600.) That means that people who earn $10 million this year, pay Social Security taxes on just .11 percent of their income. This inequity is only increasing.

    Our tax system works best for the wealthiest American. The Social Security tax is exclusively on wages, tips, bonuses and commissions. Unearned income, such as interest income, dividends and capital gains, are not subject to the tax.

    Social Security is the most successful government program in history, lifting millions of older and disabled Americans out of poverty, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. But, less wealthy Americans shoulder most of its costs. They contribute 6.2 percent of their income to Social Security.

    The Social Security tax is regressive, though poor retirees receive a greater share of lifetime earnings from the program.

    For years, Democrats in Congress have proposed raising or ending the payroll tax cap. Interest income and capital gains also should be considered earnings that are subject to Social Security taxes. If these earnings were taxed, it would extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund by 35 years. It would also allow for higher benefits.

    Today, Social Security contributions represent 12.4 percent of gross wage income. Employers and their employees each pay half, up to the cap. Each pay as much as $10, 918 this year. If you are self-employed, you pay the full amount.

    In addition, employees and employers contribute 2.9 percent or 1.45 percent each in Medicare contributions, up to the cap. And, wealthy taxpayers must also pay 3.8 percent tax on some investment income into the Medicare Part A Trust Fund.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • 2025: Social Security benefits up 2.5 percent

    2025: Social Security benefits up 2.5 percent

    Big news: The Social Security Administration just announced that the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security benefits will be 2.5%. That means that people receiving Social Security benefits will get slightly larger checks next year.

    If it were up to Republicans, Social Security benefits wouldn’t keep up with rising prices. If it were up to Republicans, seniors would have an even harder time getting by.

    Here are the facts:
    The automatic annual cost-of-living adjustment is one of Social Security’s most essential features. It is intended to ensure that benefits do not erode over time. However, the formula currently used to calculate annual COLAs under-measures the expenses that Social Security beneficiaries face.

    Seniors spend a greater proportion of their income on medical expenses―and the Social Security COLA should reflect that. Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would update the COLA formula (among other improvements to Social Security) to reflect the real cost of living for seniors and people with disabilities.

    When Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris served in the Senate, she co-sponsored one of those bills. So did vice presidential nominee Tim Walz when he served in the House.

    Republicans have a different perspective. The Republican Study Committee (which comprises over 80% of House Republicans) proposes annual budgets that include Social Security cuts.

    The RSC budget explicitly calls the current COLA formula too generous. They think seniors deserve less.

    In fact, page 104 of the Fiscal Year 2025 Republican Study Committee Budget calls the automatic nature of COLAs a “problem” and implies that they should be subjected to annual Congressional approval―turning Social Security benefits into another fiscal deadline that they can take hostage, like the debt ceiling.

    Seniors need to know: Republicans think that today’s Social Security benefits are too high, and are willing to fight to lower them. 

    The bottom line is that Democrats want to make annual COLAs more accurate and generous, while Republicans want to make them stingier. Democrats also support other policies that would lower costs for Social Security beneficiaries, including Harris’s recently released plan to expand Medicare to include home care, hearing, and vision benefits. These are the facts that could determine the election.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Social Security benefits should increase modestly in 2025

    Social Security benefits should increase modestly in 2025

    Social Security benefits should increase modestly in 2025. Andy Markowitz reports for AARP that we won’t know for sure what the Social Security cost of living increase will be in 2025 until October. But, preliminary numbers suggest an increase of close to three percent.

    In July, the Consumer Price Index was up 2.9 percent from the year before. The federal government bases its Social Security increase on the rise in the Consumer Price Index in July, August and September. Inflation is slowing down, so the increase in Social Security benefits may be closer to 2.6 percent.

    Prices remain high for lots of goods and services that older adults and people with disabilities need, including food and health care. So, some experts believe that August and September inflation numbers could bring up the Social Security COLA to as much as 3.25 percent.

    If Social Security benefits rise 2.9 percent, people will see, on average, an increase of $54 in their Social Security benefits, to $1,924, beginning in January. Survivor benefits would increase by $44 to $1,552, on average. Social Security Disability Insurance benefits (SSDI) would increase $45, on average, to $1,583.

    Social Security benefits are, thankfully, inflation-protected. Unfortunately, the cost-of-living increase calculation is based in large part on the basket of goods people under 65 purchase and not exclusively on the basket of goods older adults and people with disabilities need. Consequently, if health care costs rise faster than other goods, the Social Security adjustment is often not as large as it needs to be to make people with Medicare whole.

    In their 2024 Annual Report, Medicare’s Trustees predicted that the monthly Medicare Part B premium would increase from $174.70 to $185 in 2025. So, if the Social Security COLA increases by $54, on average, people will only see a $43.70 increase in their benefits. The other $10.30 will be deducted from their Social Security checks to cover the additional portion of their Medicare Part B premium.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Harris and Walz: “We’re not going back!” on Medicare and Social Security

    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:

  • Social Security’s future is on the ballot in 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.

  • The 2024 Trustees Report shows that Social Security is benefiting from a strong economy

    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:
  • Nancy Altman testifies in Congress on the importance of strengthening Social Security

    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:

  • House Republicans call for major cuts to Social Security and Medicare

    House Republicans call for major cuts to Social Security and Medicare

    Former President Trump does not want to admit that he supports major cuts to Social Security and Medicare, even though he has said so. He has backed off those comments. But, Republicans in the House of Republicans are underscoring their desire for major cuts to Social Security and Medicare, report Brett Arends for MarketWatch and Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling for TNR.

    The proposed 2025 Republican budget from the Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives calls for slashing $2.7 trillion from Social Security and Medicare over the next ten years. And, that’s not all. The House Republicans want to raise the age of retirement, which could mean delaying Medicare and Social Security benefits or, at the very least, reductions to those benefits.  

    To be clear, nothing is clear about the Republican plan other than a desire to cut taxes and spend less on Medicare and Social Security. Republicans see no need to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

    A recent Gallup poll found that 61 percent of Americans support raising taxes to “ensure Social Security’s long-term future” as compared to 31 percent who support curbing “the amount of benefits for future Social Security recipients.”  Arends notes that the percentage of Americans who favor raising taxes to strengthen Social Security has grown significantly over the last 15 years.

    Republicans in Congress appear to care little that the majority of Americans, including Republican voters, want to strengthen Social Security through tax increases. They do not want to cut Social Security. However, the Republican Study Committee does attempt to stave off any hostility from people receiving Medicare and Social Security today; their proposal does not affect these Americans.

    If they could, Republicans would turn Medicare into Medicare Advantage exclusively and likely cut back on payments to Medicare Advantage plans, driving up costs for older adults and people with disabilities, particularly those who need costly care.

    While the Republican Study Committee might not be helping former president Trump by speaking out for Medicare and Social Security cuts, I give the Republicans credit for not hesitating to speak their mind. The Republicans know it’s a long game to achieve these cuts and that’s the hand they are playing.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Want to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, not cut them? Vote Biden

    Want to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, not cut them? Vote Biden

    Paul Krugman explains in a New York Times opinion piece why older adults and people with disabilities who support strengthening Medicare and Social Security need to vote in the upcoming presidential election: Medicare and Social Security are on the ballot. Only Joe Biden stands with them.

    President Biden’s 2025 fiscal budget proposes to increase taxes to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. In stark contrast, former President Donald Trump has been calling for cuts to these programs. Krugman reminds us that Biden’s position is more in keeping with the public than Obama’s.

    In the past, President Obama and some other Democrats have called for limiting Medicare and Social Security spending, without regard to its consequences. Limits to Medicare spending would mean higher health care costs for older adults and people with disabilities. Limits to Social Security spending would mean lower benefits down the road and less retirement income.

    President Biden is proposing higher Social Security benefits and paying for them through higher corporate taxes. Wealthy individuals, who now contribute to Social Security for just a part of the year, unlike everyone else, and who don’t make Social Security contributions on capital gains income, would have to pay their “fair share.”

    To strengthen Medicare, President Biden proposes that people with annual incomes above $400,000 would pay a slightly higher Medicare tax rate. Their Medicare tax rate on earned and unearned income would increase from 3.8 percent to 5 percent. A majority of voters have always supported raising taxes on the wealthy to strengthen Medicare and Social Security.

    In stark contrast, here’s what Trump says:  “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.”  The Trump campaign insists that Trump did not actually mean “cutting.”

    Here’s more from Just Care: