Social Security Advocates Slam Debt Commission's 'Regressive' Proposal, Join Bernie Sanders In Crafting Progressive Alternative

WASHINGTON -- Social Security advocates have been quick to come out against the proposal released Wednesday by the co-chairs of President Barack Obama's debt commission. At the National Press Club Friday, John Rother, executive vice president for policy at AARP, said the plan was "really regressive and not the way to keep health care affordable for people going forward."

The draft report introduced by former Bill Clinton adviser Erskine Bowles and former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), would cut Social Security and Medicare, among other things.

Eric Kingson of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, has called the draft report "an equal opportunity disaster," which -- beyond cutting benefits for today's seniors and persons with disabilities -- "cuts Social Security benefits for virtually every American alive today and yet to be born."

Rother indicated his group would oppose the plan because it would dramatically reduce benefits in Social Security and Medicare over time. "You cannot deal with the deficit without dealing too with health care long-term," Rother said Friday, in response to a question from HuffPost.

"I do object to the specific proposals they make," Rother added, "particularly ones that would just cost-shift more onto beneficiaries, because that doesn't do anything to lower the burden of heath care and the economy, it just shifts who pays from taxpayers onto sick people."

Rother's views are in line with those of AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond: "During these tough economic times, the last thing we should be considering is targeting the guaranteed, inflation-protected Social Security benefits that millions of Americans count on every day," she said in a statement Wednesday.

The debt commission needs 14 of its 18 members to agree on a plan before it can receive an up or down vote from Congress. A final draft is due on Dec. 1, but so far, finding consensus within the commission looks like a long shot.

In a recent interview with HuffPost, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), one of 18 members of the commission, criticized what she described as the commission's "right-leaning plan." And on Friday Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced he will work with seniors' organizations and other groups to develop "progressive alternatives" to the Bowles-Simpson proposal. In particular, Sanders takes aim at Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy and tax credits for big oil companies.

"We all know that there are a number of fair and progressive ways to address the deficit crisis that would not harm the middle class and those who have already lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college," Sanders said in a statement Friday. "The time has come to put these proposals into a package so that the progressive view becomes a part of the national discussion."

Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told HuffPost in an email Friday night that their office had already received several responses from groups on board with the effort, including Social Security Works.

Comments

[SisterAnn]

12:23 PM on 11/15/2010

They need to get control of health costs, especially prescription drug costs. Medical and energy costs are hurting this country.

[SisterAnn]

12:17 PM on 11/15/2010

One of the worst suggestions made is changing the early retirement age from 62 to 64 years.
Many get laid off at 62 and Social Security is their financial life saver.

And not allowing people to get Medicare until they are 69. That is a gift to the insurance companies.

[justjim]

11:01 AM on 11/13/2010

Social Security has NOTHING to do with the debt. It does not need fixing. What we need to do is increase the cap. If we have no cap, Social Security will last forever. Millionaires and billionaires would have to pay their fair share. Currently the cap is around $100,000. Anyone earning above that amount do not have to contribute to the Social Security fund, which means a 13% tax break for the rich.

[jmpurser]

10:32 AM on 11/13/2010

In the FIRST place you CAN'T fix the budget deficit OR the national debt by cutting SS.  SS is paid for with a DEDICATED TAX and a trust fund.  You could stop all SS payments tomorrow and the REAL budget deficit wouldn't budge.  The scariest thing about this whole "debate" is only Senator Sanders and one other Rep (who's name escapes me) have actually made this point.  Everyone else on "both sides" and the media are all buying into the lie.  This tells me the fix is in folks.

IMHO we'll know someone is serious about the deficit and/or debt when they push (after being elected, not in campaign speeches alone) for these three agenda items:
1) Pass REAL health care reform. This will be single payer or socialized me...dicine. It will cover everyone and for profit insurance companies will NOT be involved.

2) Slash military spending. I don't mean cut the rate of growth, I mean serious year after rear reductions in real dollars spent on defense.

3) Return American income tax rates to the aggressively progressive structure we had at least before Reagan and possibly before Kennedy. If the concentration of wealth to the wealthiest doesn't reverse then the top rate isn't high enough.

Until then anyone claiming to care about our budget is what Krugman called a "Deficit Peacock" strutting around flashing their plumage for the attention it garners but with no intention of actually doing anything about it.

[bettybp]

10:10 AM on 11/13/2010

Paul Krugman clarifies this in a recent column, noting that what Simpson (Simpleton) & Bowles are proposing:

"...is a mixture of tax cuts & tax increases - Tax CUTS for the Wealthy, Tax INCREASES for the Middle Class... eliminating tax breaks that matter a lot to the Middle Class... and using much of the revenue gained thereby NOT to reduce the deficit, but to allow sharp REDUCTIONS in both the top marginal tax rate and in the CORPORATE TAX RATE"; also Naturally "...a rise in Retirement Age"

Obama's supposed Bi-partisan team headed by Simpson & Bowles also decimate Health Care:
"... their charts assuming that ..the rate of growth in health care will SLOW dramatically" How? "by 'establishing a process to Regularly Evaluate cost growth [and] Taking Additional [UNSPECIFIED] steps as needed. Note: WHAT "ADDITIONAL STEPS" does this pair mean? Euthensia? Camps for the critically ill?

Krugman concludes: "Simpson and Bowles are trying to smuggle in the same old, same old - tax cuts for the RICH and EROSION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY NET." (Emphasis supplied)
He also notes many will remember Simpson as the repub that describes Social Security as the "MILK COW WITH 310 MILLION TEATS" And this is who we have working on "REDUCTIONS" -
Its worse than an OUTRAGE!

[jmpurser]

10:34 AM on 11/13/2010

Krugman also called it "...: a compromise between the center-right and the hard-right."

[AlonzoQuijana]

09:41 AM on 11/13/2010

This article is especially non-illuminating. Just what, specifically, is wrong with the commission's draft? Changing the retirement age from 65 to 67 over 70 years (1 year per generation) seems entirely reasonable. But all I see from the left is just huff and puff about "unfairness". But please, what is specifically unfair about the proposals??

And why doesn't the left recognize the need to repair and unsustainable system? All of Europe -- socialist countries all -- see the need for austerity and living within their means. Have we now become the leftist outlier??

[jmpurser]

10:36 AM on 11/13/2010

And why does making working people work longer when we already have a severe employment crisis seem "reasonable" to you?

The only "repair and sustain" the SS system will need DECADES from now is removing the cap on income taxable to SS.

"Austerity" is code for "can't we all just make the rich a little richer?"  No, we're not buying any today.

[SisterAnn]

12:14 PM on 11/15/2010

The full retirement age is going to go to 67 because congress started gradually raising the full retirement age in 1983. Right now the full retirement age for those born from 1943 to1954 is 66.
That age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.

Statistics show that it is mostly the higher earners and the wealthy who are living longer than they did when Social Security began. They live over 6 years longer on average and draw higher benefits. The middle class lives a little over two years longer than they did when Social Security began.

So the rest of us are suppose to work longer because the well to do live longer? The better solution would be to raise the cap, which is $106,000 now, without raising benefits for the high earner.

[JNo]

09:28 AM on 11/13/2010

Raising the retirement age to 68 or 69 is not the easy answer. People are living longer, but not necessarily healthier. Rates of obesity with concomitant diabetes, hypertension and heart disease are skyrocketing. The longer people smoke cigarettes, the higher the incidence of COPD and emphysema. The longer you live, the more chance there is for you to develop cancer. I can't see how raising the retirement age will result in a significant amount of people working longer - I just see more people taking early & reduced-benefit Social Security retirement (and perhaps that's the goal).

[AlonzoQuijana]

09:43 AM on 11/13/2010

The changes will be phased in over 70 years. One year per generation. I'm sure if there is a dramatic uptick in COPD in 2065 congress will able to adjust in time. They are slow, but not that slow.

[SisterAnn]

08:38 AM on 11/13/2010

It is unbelievable. They are cutting benefits to fix shortfalls.

The cure is worse than the problem.

Raising the age to 69 for qualifying for Medicare is cruel. That would mean 4 more years of profit for the insurance companies. Nice gift to them.

It looks like they want to use our programs to pay the bills.

I would do a lot for this country, but I wasn't invited to the Wall Street party nor the Washington DC party so I am not paying for them.

They are calling this 'Obama's Commission' and who can deny it? By the time this is finished the Democratic party will be ruined.

[wdw505]

08:48 AM on 11/13/2010

70 should be the age of retirement

[SisterAnn]

06:09 PM on 11/13/2010

You either sell stocks, work for Peterson or worse.

[cafemocha]

04:07 AM on 11/13/2010

Restore the Eisenhower Era Tax Rates! Debt and deficits will be gone.

[cafemocha]

04:06 AM on 11/13/2010

Don't PIRATIZE Social Security!
That'll mean it's Goldman Sachs VS Grandma.

Keep Wall Street's FANGS out of Social Security!

[Nevervotesrepublican]

01:46 AM on 11/13/2010

We need to fight trillion dollar wars and desperately need tax breaks for people dripping with money, but don't expect us to live up to the promise that we have paid all our lives for.

Washington is a pack of leeches draining America's life blood.

[jaslyn]

01:15 AM on 11/13/2010

Erskine/Simpson should be shown the door. To cut the deficit by hitting retirees is immoral , shortsighted, and idiotic. How about the BILLIONS we pay for the war machine??? Why is there no talk of reducing that? We could finance our entire health care system and our schools if these war mongers in Washington would stop feeding this money pit.

[DavidBlackburn]

01:49 AM on 11/13/2010

Because Republicans have Americans convinced they should be more afraid of getting killed by terrorists than sinking into poverty.

Americans should ask themselves two questions:
1. What are my real odds of getting killed by a terrorist?
2. What are my odds of dying in poverty due to inadequant education, health care and Social Security?

[wdw505]

08:58 AM on 11/13/2010

both have very low odds

[SisterAnn]

12:32 PM on 11/15/2010

If the republican leaders get their way, the only taxes paid in this country will be those for the military and institutions that protect the rich, like jails, courts.

They plan to privatise schools.

Bowles and Simpson's fix is worse than the problem for Social Securty and Medicare.

[AndrewDover]

10:45 PM on 11/12/2010

Glad an alternative proposal is being put together. Two years ago would have a been a better time, or even ten years ago:

"America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources and the public will, even the bipartisan opportunities to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare. But this administration, during eight years of increasing need, did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. We will."... George Bush, 2000.

[SisterAnn]

12:34 PM on 11/15/2010

Bush and many conservative leaders think fixing Social Security and Medicare is cutting them and increasing the age before you get them.

The government can retire and draw their government pension in their 50s.

[phread]

08:54 PM on 11/12/2010

repubs love privatization. small wonder considering the source of privatization.

It is a fact that the government of the Nazi Party sold off public ownership in several Stateowned
firms in the mid-1930s. These firms belonged to a wide range of sectors: steel, mining,
banking, local public utilities, shipyards, ship-lines, railways, etc. In addition, the delivery of
some public services that were produced by government prior to the 1930s, especially social and
labor-related services, was transferred to the private sector, mainly to organizations within the
party. In the 1930s and 1940s, many academic analyses of Nazi economic policy discussed
privatization in Germany (e.g. Poole, 1939; Guillebaud, 1939; Stolper, 1940; Sweezy, 1941;
Merlin, 1943; Neumann, 1942, 1944; Nathan, 1944a; Schweitzer, 1946; Lurie,1947).

[robeson]

07:50 PM on 11/12/2010

First they're starting with a lie, Social Security is not in dire straits. There are a myriad of minor adjustments that can be implemented, raising the wage cap the easiest. Second Medi-care may be in trouble but the loudest voices here, like Conrad, opposed the most efficient way to reduce health costs. So his shouting is very suspicious. Third the idea that the debt needs to be paid by those least able and certainly not responisble, is immoral and absurd. The place to start deficit reduction is to halt the military welfare machine, and nation building. Finally, let the wealthy show their patriotism by paying a fair tax on their income.

[Biffmeister]

11:10 PM on 11/12/2010

Agree--excellent points.