SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nancy altman
'Social Security Is on the Ballot,' Say Advocates as Trump Threatens Cuts
"Not on my watch," said President Joe Biden in response to his Republican predecessor's latest threats to the safety net program.
Mar 11, 2024
With U.S. President Joe Biden's proposed 2025 budget released by the White House Monday just after former President Donald Trump issued his latest threat to slash Social Security and other safety net programs, economic justice groups said the choice between the two 2024 candidates could not be clearer.
"Make no mistake: Social Security is on the ballot this November," said Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works after Trump phoned in to CNBC's "Squawk Box" to say that "there is a lot you can do... in terms of cutting" so-called "entitlements" like the program for retirees as well as Medicaid and Medicare.
"And in terms of, also, the theft and the bad management of entitlements—tremendous bad management of entitlements—there's tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do," said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Q: We've got $33 trillion in debt, have you changed your view on how to handle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, something has to be done to bring down debt.
Trump: "There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting." [pivots to rambling, lies] pic.twitter.com/4lMvJ6mcVG
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) March 11, 2024
While Trump's answer was "largely gibberish," according to former National Economic Council Deputy Director Bharat Ramamurti, his "express support for cutting Social Security and Medicare" was made clear.
A spokesperson for Trump's campaign said his comments were about cutting "waste" in the programs, but the remarks followed the former president's attempts to cut Social Security in all of the budget proposals he released during his term.
"It is consistent with Trump's past calls to privatize Social Security and raise the retirement age, as well as his slandering it as a 'Ponzi scheme,'" said Altman. "It is also consistent with the House Republican FY2025 budget, which proposes creating a commission designed to slash Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors."
The Republicans' budget proposal, which the House Budget Committee advanced last week, includes a so-called "fiscal commission" that would be empowered to fast-track Social Security and Medicare cuts.
"The contrast is clear," said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). "Democrats want to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The other party wants to end the programs as we know them."
Before winning the 2016 election, Trump called to raise the retirement age to 70 and promised to rescind the payroll tax—the taxes working people pay to fund Social Security and Medicare. He has frequently said cutting the programs, which about 70 million people rely on for post-retirement financial security and healthcare, was necessary to maintain their long-term solvency.
Despite Republicans' frequent claims that Americans' earned benefit programs are "bankrupting the country," Social Security is currently fully solvent—able to pay out full benefits to all beneficiaries—through 2034, and even if Congress took no action to expand the program, would be able to cover 80% of benefits after 2034. Medicare is currently solvent through 2028.
On social media, Biden responded to Trump's plan for the programs with four words: "Not on my watch."
Altman noted that Biden's proposed budget included "a very different vision for Social Security's future," with the president releasing a plan Monday "for protecting and expanding Social Security—and paying for it by requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share."
Under a second Biden term, the White House said, there would be no benefit cuts to Social Security, and wealthy Americans—who currently do not pay Social Security taxes on all of their income, such as capital gains—would be required to pay "their fair share" to ensure retirees can continue to benefit from the program.
The Biden budget would also extend the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund permanently "by modestly increasing the Medicare tax rate on incomes above $400,000, closing loopholes in existing Medicare taxes, and directing revenue from the Net Investment Income Tax into the HI Trust Fund as was originally intended."
"Current law lets certain wealthy business owners avoid Medicare taxes on some of the profits they get from passthrough businesses," said the White House. "The budget closes this loophole and raises Medicare tax rates on earned and unearned income from 3.8% to 5% for those with incomes over $400,000."
Advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness pointed out that with Trump's plan to extend his 2017 tax cuts—which disproportionately benefited corporations and the wealthy and made billionaires $2.2 trillion richer—$3.5 trillion would be added to federal government's deficit.
"If anyone tries to cut Social Security or Medicare or raise the retirement age, I will stop them," said Biden on Monday after the release of his budget proposal. "Working people built this country, and pay more into Social Security than millionaires and billionaires do. It's not fair."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters—Including Majority of Republicans—Oppose McCarthy Ploy to Attack Social Security
"Voters have a message for Kevin McCarthy," said one critic of the House speaker's proposed fiscal commission: "Hands off Social Security and Medicare!"
Jun 28, 2023
As House Republicans advance a budget proposal that one leading critic warns would "destroy Social Security as we know it," a survey published Wednesday showed U.S. voters overwhelmingly oppose the creation of the fiscal commission proposed by Speaker Kevin McCarthy to decide how to gut the vital social program upon which nearly 70 million Americans rely.
The Data for Progress survey found that opposition to McCarthy's (R-Calif.) proposed commission is thoroughly bipartisan, with 72% of all likely voters—including 78% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans—either "somewhat" or "strongly" opposing the move.
In contrast, 93% of survey respondents said that Social Security benefits should remain as they are or be expanded, including 94% of Democrats, 91% of Independents, and 94% of Republicans.
"Voters correctly understand that Social Security and Medicare are earned benefits," Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, wrote for Data for Progress.
"Contrary to the claims of McCarthy and other Republicans, Social Security doesn't contribute a single penny to the national debt," she noted. It is fully funded by the contributions of American workers and other dedicated revenue. Indeed, it currently has a $2.8 trillion accumulated surplus."
McCarthy's overt attack on Social Security belies his oft-repeated past promise that cuts to the program were off the table.
During his February State of the Union address, President Joe Biden was loudly booed by Republican lawmakers when he accused some of them of seeking to "sunset" Social Security, an allegation that McCarthy denied.
However, last month the speaker claimed that Biden "walled off" cuts to Social Security and Medicare during the debt ceiling talks, and warned that he would "make some people uncomfortable" by taking a "look at" slashing funding for both programs.
"McCarthy and his fellow Republicans have made it clear that raising taxes on the wealthy is not an option," Altman wrote Wednesday. "When Republicans say they want to create a commission to 'look at' Social Security and Medicare, they mean one thing: benefit cuts."
Meanwhile, congressional progressives are fighting to not only save but expand Social Security.
As Altman noted:
Sens. Bernie Sanders [I-Vt.] and Elizabeth Warren [D-Mass.] have introduced the Social Security Expansion Act: which does just that. It expands benefits across the board by $200 per month and ensures that all benefits can be paid in full and on time through the end of the century and beyond. No one with income less than $250,000 would pay even a penny more.
Similarly, Rep. John Larson [D-Ct.] will soon introduce Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust. Under his plan, no one earning under $400,000 would pay a penny more. The additional revenue from the wealthiest among us would be used to strengthen and expand the program. In the last Congress, Social Security 2011 was cosponsored by about 90% of Larson's fellow House Democrats.
"These are bills that can go through regular order for Congress to vote on in the light of day," Altman wrote. "That's because they are overwhelmingly supported by voters—Democrats, Republicans, Independents. Those are truly bipartisan proposals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
80 Years Later, Republicans Are Still Fighting Social Security
Aug 14, 2015
Some things never change. "The lash of the dictator will be felt," a Republican House member said in 1935 when Social Security was first proposed. "Social Security is the delinquent child of the left," a Fox News commentator said this week, "that grew up to be an evil dictator."
"Dictator"? A program created by popularly elected politicians that enjoys widespread voter support?
Polls have consistently shown that Americans are extremely pleased with Social Security, which provides benefits at costs far below those in the private sector. But as the program celebrates its 80th birthday today, Republicans are still working to erode the public's trust in it, just as they did when GOP presidential candidate Alf Landon called it "a fraud on the workingman" in 1936 and said, "The saving it forces on our workers is a cruel hoax."
Campaigning against Social Security is to court political suicide. (It certainly didn't help Alf Landon; he was trounced.) Therefore, it becomes imperative to convince voters that the program is unreliable. That's the Republican strategy.
Elements of the strategy include:
Insist that the program's $2.8 trillion trust fund isn't real, that it consists of "only IOUs" - a description that could just as easily be applied to the Treasury bonds held by billionaires and Wall Street banks or any other legally executed instrument of debt.
Exaggerate minor imbalances between the retirement and disability funds - funds which many experts believe should have been merged long ago - to convince voters that one or both of them is "running out of money" despite its $2.8 trillion size. This gamesmanship extracts a very real human cost.)
Repeatedly describe Social Security as "going broke," despite its massive cash flow. Exaggerate relatively minor future shortfalls without mentioning that they could easily be fixed - and benefits expanded - if millionaires and billionaires were willing to pay into the program at the same rates as middle-class Americans.
Starve Social Security's administrative budget, even though that budget comes out of Social Security funds and not general revenues, just as millions of baby boomers claim retirement benefits for the first time. Use any resulting delays or difficulties to claim that "government isn't as efficient as the private sector," even though Social Security is run much more cost-effectively than any private corporation in the same general line of business.
The Social Security Act was signed on August 14, 1935. Eighty years later, that's a heck of a way to wish it a happy birthday.
Why do they do it? Part of the objection is clearly ideological. They don't want to admit that there are some things that the government simply does better than the private sector. That helps explain the overheated rhetoric from the Fox set. To that extent, at least, Social Security's detractors are sincere (if wrongheaded).
But one cannot discount the self-interest of the billionaires who serve as the patrons of right-wing politicians and (at times) pundits. Many of them don't want to pay into the Social Security system at the same rate as middle-class Americans and the working poor. Therefore, it is in their self-interest to convince voters that Social Security contributes to a larger federal deficit (it doesn't because it's fully self-financed) and that it's "going broke." That way, they hope, voters will insist on cuts to "preserve the program for future generations."
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during his race against Landon, "It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them."
At least 14 of the 17 Republican candidates for the presidential nomination have come out for Social Security cuts in some form. Only Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have indicated they oppose cuts, while Dr. Ben Carson has remained silent. (Nancy Altman has more details here, and you can read some of the candidates' anti-Social Security rhetoric here.)
Republicans also oppose expanding Social Security's benefits, although polls show overwhelming support for the idea among voters across the political spectrum. But the idea has gained ground among Democrats. Of the three major Democratic presidential candidates, only Hillary Clinton has yet to indicate support for a benefit increase. (This week, she appeared to move closer to Sen. Bernie Sanders' plan to increase taxes for very high earners; however, an idea she opposed in 2008.)
That's a major shift from recent decades, during which "centrist" Democrats from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama indicated their support for benefit cuts. This gesture was too often taken as a sign of "maturity" or "realism" in the money-fueled Beltway culture.
The shift in Democratic rhetoric seems to reflect a growing awareness of the electorate's deep satisfaction with Social Security and its deep commitment to the program's survival and expansion. It also highlights the extent to which, on this historic anniversary, Republicans are out of step with both history and the public mood when it comes to Social Security.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular