JustCare

Category: Social Security

  • Poll: More than 75 percent of Americans support strengthening Social Security

    Poll: More than 75 percent of Americans support strengthening Social Security

    Most Americans love Social Security. It is a national treasure that, increasingly, millions of older and disabled Americans and their families depend upon. A new poll from Data for Progress shows that more than eight in ten Americans are somewhat or very concerned that Social Security will not be able to pay out its full benefits. Not surprisingly, more than three in four Americans across the political spectrum strongly or somewhat support raising taxes on Americans earning more than $400,000 annually to pay for expanding and strengthening Social Security.

    Social Security is government-required savings–an earned benefit supported through payroll contributions during your working life, which helps guarantee financial security during your retirement years and in other special situations, including long-term disability. Much like life insurance, you pay in, and it pays out.

    Unlike other government benefits, Social Security pays for itself, including the cost of its administration. But, Republicans have tried to cripple Social Security when in power, for example, refusing to take money from its Trust Fund to cover the full cost of staff and local offices. Without enough funding, it becomes difficult for people to get their Social Security benefits.

    Right now, Democrats in Congress want to expand Social Security, so that its benefits keep pace with cost of living increases. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy to make sure that Social Security continues to have the funding it needs to pay out full benefits for the next several decades.

    Voters overwhelmingly prefer that Social Security benefits be expanded and that wealthy Americans contribute their fair share to ensure Social Security’s solvency. And, even though Social Security’s Trust Fund is designated exclusively for Social Security, Republicans want to raid the Social Security Trust Fund  to fund their initiatives.

    Marco Rubio is proposing to cut Social Security benefits in retirement in order to fund people’s parental leave, through his Providing for Life Act. His proposal would jeopardize people’s retirement security. Moreover, if the parent who took paid parental leave died before she became eligible for Social Security, the government would be able to claw back the parental leave payment from her family.

    Americans are already struggling in retirement, with few retirement savings. Social Security is their lifeline. Costs are only rising. Rubio’s proposal jeopardizes people’s situation, reducing the amount of money they would be able to count on in retirement.

    In 2005, under President George W. Bush, Republicans tried but failed to privatize Social Security. They know that Americans depend on it. Once again, they are trying to find a way to destroy its benefits, this time, by allowing people to take its benefits upfront. But, when Americans retire, Social Security would offer less financial security. If Republicans care about paid parental leave, they should pay for it through higher taxes on the wealthy or through an additional payroll contribution, not mess with Social Security and people’s retirement security.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Senate Budget Committee holds hearing on Social Security expansion

    Senate Budget Committee holds hearing on Social Security expansion

    [Excerpts from the testimony of Nancy Altman and Alex Lawson before the US Senate Budget Committee, June 9, 2022. respectively President and Executive Director, Social Security Works]

    “Thank you, Chairman Sanders, not only for holding this crucially important hearing on Social Security, but also for your just-introduced Social Security Expansion Act. That legislation, which will increase the economic security of working families, is extremely wise policy.

    The Sanders legislation is consistent with recent Democratic Platforms and with President Biden’s stated position. It shares important provisions with a leading expansion bill in the House of Representatives, Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, which has 202 cosponsors. All of these proposals expand benefits with no cuts, while completely covering the costs of the expansions and addressing Social Security’s projected shortfall by requiring the wealthiest to pay more.

    … [I]t is not surprising that none of the proposed legislation has Republican support in Congress. Nor have any current Republican members of Congress proposed any legislation that reveals what they would do to address Social Security’s projected shortfall. Instead, they hide their substantive views behind process. Senator Rick Scott proposes to sunset Social Security in five years without an affirmative vote. His colleague, Senator Mitt Romney, proposes a closed-door commission whose recommendations would be fast tracked and unamendable.

    Democrats Stand with the American People — Who Overwhelmingly Favor Expanding, Not Cutting, Social Security

    It is important to recognize that, though the Democratic proposals have no Republican cosponsors, they are completely bipartisan. Poll after poll has found that an overwhelming majority of Republicans, as well as Democrats and Independents, support Social Security. They believe that Social Security is more important than ever. They strongly oppose any cuts to its modest benefits. They want to see it expanded. They want the wealthiest to pay more but are willing to pay more themselves, if necessary.

    America’s working families support Social Security so strongly because they recognize it provides insurance against risks to which all of us are vulnerable. Rich or poor, any of us can die prematurely, leaving young children. Rich or poor, any of us can suffer a disabling accident or illness. Rich or poor, all of us hope to live to old age. Social Security insures workers’ wages against all of those risks. It does so more efficiently, securely, universally, effectively, and fairly than its private sector counterparts. Social Security’s one shortcoming is that its benefits are inadequately low.

    Whether to Expand or Cut Social Security is a Question of Values, Not Affordability

    Expanding, not cutting, Social Security and restoring it to long-range actuarial balance is a question of values. It is unquestionably affordable. … Social Security’s cost as a percentage of GDP is close to a straight horizontal line for the next three- quarters of a century and beyond.

    According to the most recent Trustees Report, Social Security is calculated to cost just 5.87 percent of GDP in 2100, at the end of the 21st century. That is a lower percentage of GDP than many other industrialized countries spend on their counterpart programs today, as the chart on page three shows.

    Moreover, our nation is projected to be much wealthier at the end of the 21st century, just as we are wealthier now than we were seventy-five years ago, before computers, smartphones, and other technological advances. That means that the less-than 6 percent of GDP will be easier to afford in the future, just as an individual earning $100,000 can more easily afford a 6 percent expenditure (despite it being a larger dollar amount) than an individual earning $10,000. In one case, $94,000 remains; in the other, just $9,400.

    Nor should the increase of just under one percent of GDP between now and the end of the century be difficult to absorb. To put that projected increase in perspective, military spending after the 9/11 terrorist attack increased by over one percent of GDP, as a result of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—and that increase was the result of a surprise attack, with no advance warning. Similarly, spending on public education nationwide increased by 2.8 percentage points of GDP between 1950 and 1975, when the baby boom generation showed up as schoolchildren, without much advance warning….

    Expanding Social Security is a Solution to the Nation’s Retirement Income Crisis, as well as Other Challenges

    In the five decades since Congress last enacted Social Security benefit increases, traditional employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plans have largely disappeared. They were replaced by 401(k)s, which have proven to be inadequate for all but the very wealthiest.

    The nation is now facing a retirement income crisis, where too many workers appropriately fear that they will never be able to retire without drastic reductions in their standards of living. Indeed, numerous polls and surveys over recent years reveal that not having enough money in retirement leads the list of Americans’ top financial concerns. . . .

    The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College reports that one out of two working-age households will be unable to maintain their standards of living in retirement – even if they work until age 65, take out reverse mortgages on their homes, and annuitize all of their other assets. Moreover, the number of working-age households unable to retire and maintain their standards of living increases to over 60 percent when health care costs are taken into account. . . .

    Unfortunately, the retirement income crisis is likely to require adult children to take resources away from their children in order to help support aged parents – unless Congress acts to expand Social Security.

    It is well past time for Congress to vote on expanding Social Security. That is the most effective way to address the nation’s retirement income crisis. At the same time, expanding Social Security by requiring the wealthiest to pay their fair share will begin to address the nation’s perilous, rising income and wealth inequality, which former president Barack Obama called “the defining challenge of our time.” Moreover, expanding Social Security will ease some of the financial burden of today’s working families, squeezed between the older and younger generations.

    Today’s Elected Republicans are Standing in the Way of Protecting and Expanding Social Security

    From the beginning, there has always been a small radical group who opposed Social Security. Those radicals are now in control of the Republican Party. While today’s Republican politicians will not admit it, they support cuts. While they won’t admit it, Donald Trump pointed out the obvious during the Republican primaries, leading up to the 2016 election. He charged, “Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security…And it’s not fair to the people that have been paying in for years.”

    Moreover, the Republican Party’s most recent Party Platform, drafted in 2016, states their desire to cut Social Security, but does so using opaque and coded language. …Republican strategists know that the benefit cuts to which the platform alludes are deeply unpopular with the American people. Despite the Party’s effort to avoid accountability, a careful reading makes it clear where the Republican Party stands.

    The Social Security plank states that Republicans “believe in the power of markets to create wealth.” That is code for privatizing Social Security, a dangerous scheme that was resoundingly rejected by the American people when George W. Bush proposed it in 2005. It also states that “we oppose tax increases” which means that they oppose requiring the wealthiest Americans to contribute their fair share and want to see Social Security drastically cut or even radically changed instead. Since they state their clear opposition to increasing Social Security’s revenue, that leaves only two options to eliminate the projected shortfall: Automatic cuts (if they block action for the next decade) or legislated cuts. Moreover, the stated support of many Republican politicians for privatizing, means-testing, or reducing all benefits to a low subsistence level means they want to not just cut Social Security, but end it as we know it.

    Finally, the Republican Platform states that “current retirees and those close to retirement can be assured of their benefits” which leaves the door open to cutting benefits for younger generations of Americans. This shows how out of step today’s Republican politicians are with the American people on this important subject.

    While suggesting that Social Security is in crisis, the Republican Platform completely ignores the nation’s looming retirement income crisis. Indeed, they would make that crisis worse by cutting Social Security’s modest benefits for younger Americans who will need them the most.

    Social Security does not need to be saved. . . . Rather, Social Security is a solution. If expanded, it would be even more so. . . .

    It is important to understand that, because of the way Social Security is structured, raising Social Security’s retirement age by just one year is mathematically identical to a 6-7 percent across-the-board benefit cut. Moreover, it falls heaviest on those in physically demanding jobs who are unable to continue to work to the statutorily-specified age.

    … [T]he TRUST Act . . .would create an undemocratic, fast-tracked, closed-door process to make changes to Social Security. Our Social Security system is too important to be addressed in this manner. Major changes have always gone through regular order and they always should. The only reason to go behind closed doors is to do what the American people adamantly oppose — cut benefits!

    [I]n February 2022, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) released his so-called “Plan to Rescue America.” This plan states that “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.” It also states: “All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game.”

    Senator Scott’s plan would terminate Social Security and Medicare in 5 years unless Congress voted to reauthorize them. This would give far-right opponents of Social Security and Medicare enormous leverage over the future of the programs. They could refuse to reauthorize them, or only agree to do so if the programs are massively cut and fully privatized.

    Further, Senator Scott’s plan would raise taxes on seniors. Seniors, living on Social Security, with incomes barely above the poverty line, appropriately do not currently pay income tax. That includes eighty percent of Americans over age 75. Under Scott’s plan, they would see their meager benefits in effect cut, because some of those dollars would go for Senator Scott’s tax increase.

    A comparison of the Scott and Sanders plans highlights the difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties with respect to Social Security. The Sanders plan expands Social Security’s modest benefits; the Scott plan indirectly cuts those modest benefits. The Sanders plan increases the security of Social Security by requiring those earning over $250,000 to start paying more of their fair share. The Scott plan undermines the stability of the program by requiring it to be reauthorized every five years.

    It is clear which plan the American people want. That explains why the Republican Party avoids offering substantive solutions. The Democrats are to be applauded for offering concrete proposals and insisting that Social Security be debated in the sunshine. Thank you.

  • In the hands of Republicans, Social Security is at serious risk

    In the hands of Republicans, Social Security is at serious risk

    The Trump administration launched a major attack on Social Security, putting some older adults and people with disabilities at extreme risk. The Washington Post reports on how attorneys at Social Security imposed excessive fines on scores of Social Security recipients who received benefits inappropriately. Now, in an op-ed for The Miami Herald, Max Richtman, the head of the National Committee to Protect Social Security and Medicare, writes about how Senator Rick Scott of Florida wants to privatize Social Security, effectively putting Social Security benefits at risk and undermining the ability of tens of millions of vulnerable Americans to afford basic necessities.

    Because Social Security is a national treasure, beloved by Republicans and Democrats alike, Senator Scott is not outright speaking about doing away with Social Security or Medicare. But, Scott’s proposal to require Congressional reauthorization of federal programs every five years would allow for just that. He would require Congress to re-enact Medicare and Social Security every five years to continue them. Since Senator Scott now chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, his proposals are likely to have a lot of influence in Congress, especially if Republicans regain control of the House and Senate.

    Some years ago, Senator Scott proposed privatizing Social Security. If Congress privatized Social Security, it would put people’s benefits at serious risk, open to the vicissitudes of the market. Richtman projects that as many as one in three older adults could be impoverished. Moreover, without Social Security and Medicare, local governments and businesses would lose significant revenue.

    Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits. Voters should beware of any proposals that would remove Social Security’s critical guarantees, cut their benefits, or otherwise make it harder to be assured of a regular income stream and health insurance.

    So far, Republicans have not been successful at privatizing or otherwise cutting Social Security. But, here’s a taste of what the Trump administration did to undermine Social Security:

    Trump’s Social Security agency imposed excessively harsh penalties on vulnerable older adults as part of its anti-fraud program. The Biden administration’s acting Social Security commissioner is now investigating those acts. And, Democrats in Congress are seeking an investigation into this possible abuse of authority. They want to prevent future behavior of this sort and help the people who were harshly penalized.

    What did the Trump administration do exactly? It imposed huge fines on scores of poor older adults and people with disabilities who received Social Security benefits improperly. The penalties appear to be an abuse of the administration’s authority.

    The attorneys working in the Social Security Administration in 2018, when Trump was president, did not follow standard protocols for recouping funds inappropriately paid to Social Security enrollees. In determining penalties for fraud, they should have looked at individuals’ income. Instead, they charged these individuals more than twice what they inappropriately received in Social Security benefits.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Social Security benefits projected to increase 8.6 percent in 2023

    Social Security benefits projected to increase 8.6 percent in 2023

    Inflation is taking a huge toll on Americans. If there’s any silver lining, it’s that people receiving Social Security benefits should see their largest benefit increase in more than 40 years. CBSNews.org reports that Social Security benefits are projected to rise 8.6 percent in 2023; that said, Social Security benefits should increase far more.

    How does the Social Security increase translate to dollars? It will mean about $142.60 more each month for the typical person on Social Security. The total average monthly check should rise to $1,800.

    Since last April the Consumer Price Index is up about 8.3 percent. It’s up about 8.9 percent for urban wage earners and clerical workers, the CPI-W. Social Security bases its cost of living adjustment for older Americans on a somewhat different calculation.

    Today, 69 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. This year they saw a 5.9 percent cost of living adjustment. That increase is lower than the overall cost of living increases typical older adults are facing. Older adults spend a lot more than younger people on health care.

    Some of the Social Security benefit increase will go to the cost of the Medicare Part B premium, which is likely to increase next year. Last year, it rose 14.5 percent or a total of $21.60.

    Then again, $11 of the increased Medicare Part B premium this year is attributable to the projected cost of Aduhelm. Since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ended up deciding not to cover Aduhelm except in rare instances, people are already spending $11 more in Medicare premiums than they should be.

    Because Social Security checks do not keep up with the inflation older adults see, the value of their benefits is estimated to have eroded 40 percent. As a consequence, an increasing number of older adults and people with disabilities rely on food banks and food stamps. A better COLA index would be the CPI-E, which factors in rising health care costs more heavily.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • 2022: Congress should scrap the Social Security cap

    2022: Congress should scrap the Social Security cap

    On February 23, millionaires in the US received a late Valentine. They stopped paying into Social Security for the rest of 2022 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, it’s time to scrap the cap.

    Social Security is the most successful government program in history, with overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans alike. A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 86% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats supported keeping or increasing current spending on Social Security.

    In 2022, Americans with wages over $147,000 stop contributing into Social Security. (In 2021, the cap was $142,800.) Consequently, the small fraction of people earning more than $147,000 pay a lower tax rate for Social Security than everyone else. Someone earning $1 million a year pays an effective Social Security tax rate of only 0.8 percent as compared to most Americans who pay a Social Security tax rate of 6.2 percent.

    Today, more than nine out of ten Americans (94 percent) contribute all year long into Social Security. They bear a greater burden for contributing to Social Security than millionaires. If the wealthiest Americans contributed to Social Security throughout the year, just as other Americans, the Social Security trust funds would have $1.4 trillion more.

    More than 18 percent of wage income is projected to not be subject to the Social Security tax over the next ten years. In 1983, 10 percent of wage income was not subject to the tax. As the gap between wealthy and poor has grown in the US, more income of the wealthy has been shielded from the Social Security tax.

    Social Security is a lifeline for most retirees and their families, providing critical retirement security, an average annual benefit of $19,884. It currently replaces about 40 percent of people’s pre-retirement income. Social Security’s importance is all the greater today as a retirement crisis looms. But, Social Security benefits have been shrinking relative to earnings.

    Social Security benefits increase with inflation overall. But inflationary adjustments have not kept up with the rise in health care costs facing retirees and others receiving Social Security benefits. Economist Dean Baker has proposed changing the formula for calculating benefits so that it is in line with expenses.

    We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We can afford to expand Social Security and increase Social Security benefits for low- and moderate-income workers.

    Check out this calculator from the Center on Economic and Policy Rights to see the last day millionaires are subject to Social Security taxes.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Social Security benefits will increase nearly 6 percent in 2022

    Social Security benefits will increase nearly 6 percent in 2022

    There’s welcome news for Social Security beneficiaries. In 2022, Social Security benefits will increase nearly six percent. That means that the typical person receiving Social Security benefits will receive an additional $92 a month.

    Social Security is the primary income of three out of five beneficiaries aged 55 and older. Social Security is virtually the only income of one third of them. 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 during the pandemic. Because Social Security beneficiaries are so at risk, their modest benefits—retirement benefits average less than $1,600 a month—have been stretched even thinner during the pandemic. To keep distance from others, they have incurred costs for deliveries of medicine and food, as well as additional medical costs if they become sick.

    One of Social Security’s most important features—not found in its private sector counterparts—is that all benefits are automatically adjusted every January to offset the effects of inflation. The automatic adjustment for 2022 will be 5.9 percent, or an average of $92 a month. The inflation offset is much needed. Many older adults, people with disabilities and all other Social Security beneficiaries have seen their costs increase more than 5.9 percent over the last year. For example, prescription drug prices rose an average of 16 percent in just the first seven months of the year.

    Large as the announced 5.9 percent increase in benefits may appear on paper, it is not enough for seniors and people with disabilities on fixed incomes to make ends meet. Social Security undermeasures the inflation older adults and other Social Security beneficiaries 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 Social Security beneficiaries and, therefore, experience significantly lower inflation. Older adults and people with disabilities spend more on health care 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.

    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.

    CPI-E is part of President Joe Biden’s plan to update and expand Social Security. It is the right policy. It also, according to numerous polls, 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 Act, sponsored by Representative John Larson (D-CT), Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, and cosponsored by  90 percent of his fellow Democrats.

    Chairman Larson and his fellow Democrats recognize how modest Social Security’s benefits are by virtually any measure.  To be clear, substituting the CPI-E for the current CPI-W is not a benefit increase, but an update. It is a better measure to ensure that benefits will not erode over time. It is designed to allow beneficiaries to tread water, instead of sinking, as they now are. In addition, Democratic policymakers want to increase Social Security’s modest but vital benefits.  But, as a fundamental matter, an accurate cost of living adjustment is essential to keep today’s modest benefits from eroding.

    An accurate adjustment is essential for everyone, but it is particularly important for women and Hispanics. The erosion of benefits from inadequate adjustments compounds over time and those two groups, on average, have the longest life expectancies.

    No Republicans have either cosponsored one of the many pending bills or introduced their own. So far, Republicans have not supported the efforts to expand Social Security.

    Congress should also adopt the CPI-E for other federal programs for older adults and people with disabilities. These include military retirement benefits, veterans’ compensation, civil service retirement benefits and the Supplemental Security Income benefits, which also still use the CPI-W.

    After lifetimes of work, Americans have earned their Social Security. It is well past time they get a fair 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:

  • Coronavirus: Social Security stands on solid ground

    Coronavirus: Social Security stands on solid ground

    Eric Kingson and Nancy Altman write for the Daily News on the Social Security Trustees Report, which confirms the solid ground upon which Social Security sits. Notwithstanding the pandemic, Social Security has continued to pay benefits to tens of millions of Americans.

    Social Security represents about 5 percent of GDP. It will take until the end of the 21st century for it to represent 6 percent of GDP. The increase makes complete sense given that the population of older Americans is growing both in numbers and as a proportion of the population. Older adults will represent 23 percent of the population, 94 million people, by 2060.

    Most other developed nations spend a far larger share of GDP on Social Security benefits. For example, Social Security represents 11 percent of GDP in France, Germany and Portugal.

    Social Security has funds to pay full benefits until 2034. (NB: That’s 13 years out. And, many fewer people were working and contributing to Social Security than usual last year. With wages rising, it would not be surprising if the life of the Social Security Trust Fund grows by next year, with no Congressional intervention.) Even if additional Social Security payroll contributions in the next few years do not extend its life, it would still have funding to pay 78 cents on the dollar. Of course, that is not acceptable; and, Congress would likely make up any shortfall.

    That said, Social Security benefits need to increase. More and more Americans are facing a crisis in retirement. They do not have the income they had in the past because employer-sponsored pensions are disappearing and most people do not have enough money in their 401(k)s to maintain a decent standard of living once they stop working.

    Income inequality has only grown since the pandemic. In the past, Social Security succeeded at reducing income and wealth inequality. It fostered a strong middle class. It could do so once more if wealthier Americans paid as much proportionately into Social Security as less wealthy Americans. Congress simply could eliminate the cap on Social Security contributions, which is now $142,800 and then easily increase Social Security benefits.

    We also need national paid family and medical leave to improve the economic security of American families, along with guaranteed universal health care. We’ve had only limited progress on these fronts since Social Security’s enactment–even though they were contemplated back then. Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act have made a significant difference for some cohorts of the population. But, there’s so much more to do.

    President Biden is calling for paid family and medical leave as well as new Medicare benefits and better coverage of home and community-based care through Medicaid. The public increasingly stands firmly behind these benefits. The US–the wealthiest nation in the world–has the means to deliver these benefits. And, these benefits would go far in ensuring the well-being of all Americans.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Social Security benefits often don’t cover even basic necessities

    Social Security benefits often don’t cover even basic necessities

    Lorie Konish writes for CNBC.com on the lack of funding in Social Security and the need to increase Social Security benefits. Millions of retirees are struggling to pay for basic necessities. Congressman John Larson argues that Congress should not kick the can down the road. How quickly will Congress act?

    President Biden advocated during his presidential campaign for raising Social Security checks to at least 125 percent of the federal poverty level. He also said that people with pension income should not see their Social Security benefits reduced. Representative Larson seeks to increase benefits.

    President Biden and Congressman Larson want to increase payroll contributions for people with high incomes to help offset the cost of raising Social Security benefits for people with low incomes.

    The average annual Social Security benefit today is $18,500. But, some people–predominantly women and people of color–receive as little as $12,880, less than the federal poverty level. And 40 percent of people depend heavily–if not exclusively–on Social Security income to cover their expenses.

    The Social Security Fairness Act would end the policy of reducing the Social Security income of people who have federal, state or local pensions. But, it would not increase benefits to people who did not also have federal, state or local pensions.

    While Democrats hold a majority in both the House and the Senate, it is razor thin. Time will tell how much the Democrats can accomplish.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Republicans have a plan to cut Social Security and Medicare

    Republicans have a plan to cut Social Security and Medicare

    Jake Johnson reports in Common Dreams that Senator Lindsey Graham is using the Republicans’ leverage in Congress to cut Social Security and Medicare. Only if Democrats agree to these cuts would Republicans agree to raise the federal debt ceiling.

    Americans pay into Social Security and Medicare throughout their working lives. They earn these benefits. Alex Lawson, Social Security Works, explains that “Lindsey Graham and his fellow Republicans will stop at nothing to cut the American people’s earned Social Security and Medicare benefits.”

    It’s apparently not enough that millions of retirees live in poverty or on the edge of poverty, that they are forced to go without healthcare, that they are dying prematurely. Medicare and Social Security help millions of people stay afloat. But, the Republicans want a commission to cut Social Security and Medicare as the price for raising the debt ceiling.

    Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are working on a plan to raise the debt ceiling. They really should be voting to eliminate it altogether. Either way, Republicans will try to keep the Democrats from getting this done easily and swiftly. But, failure to increase or eliminate the debt ceiling could lead the federal government to default on its payments.

    Under President Trump, Congress voted to suspend the debt limit through July 2021. With Trump out of power and a Democratic president in control, Republicans are no longer willing to support this. Senator Wyden, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, has said that he will not accept the Republicans’ conditions for raising the debt ceiling. “Nobody is going to hold the American economy hostage, period, full stop.”

    Democrats could raise or eliminate the debt ceiling without Republican support, through the budget reconciliation process. To do so, they would need every Democratic Senator supporting the debt ceiling increase or its elimination.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • President Biden fires head of Social Security

    President Biden fires head of Social Security

    It took longer than it should have, but President Biden fired Trump’s pick to head Social Security, Andrew Saul. As you might imagine, Saul’s entire m.o. was to keep people from getting Social Security benefits. Now, Saul vows to challenge President Biden’s ability to fire him.

    President Biden has chosen Kilolo Kijakazi to serve as acting commissioner. She is currently the deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy at the Social Security Administration.

    The Social Security Administration is an independent executive agency. Trump appointed Saul to serve the Republican political agenda–end Social Security. And, since Mr. Biden took office, Democrats have wanted Saul out.

    Saul has tried to keep people with disabilities from getting their Social Security disability benefits. He refused benefits to about 100,000 people who are not fluent in English. He also participated in a number of anti-union activities.

    Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, released this statement:

    Today is a great day for every current and future Social Security beneficiary. Andrew Saul and David Black were appointed by former President Donald Trump to undermine Social Security. They’ve done their very best to carry out that despicable mission. That includes waging a war on people with disabilities, demoralizing the agency’s workforce, and delaying President Biden’s stimulus checks.

    Senator Ron Wyden also spoke in support of President Biden’s decision to fire Saul. He explained that Saul’s leadership at SSA undermined the president’s desire to improve and expand Social Security.

    Here’s more from Just Care: