Fact Sheets & Briefs

Quotes From Behind The Conservative Wrecking Ball

Eric Hunt — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:16:13 -0400

Rep. Michele Bachmann

"I have no intention of voting to raise the debt ceiling because, right now, the federal government continues to spend more money than what it takes in."
"It isn't true that the government would default on its debt. ... It is scare tactics." Instead, she said the U.S. could avoid a default by paying only the interest on U.S. obligations while lawmakers work on a deal to cut spending dramatically as part of a new debt ceiling. Such an approach has been derided as unworkable by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
"We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world; we need to drop that significantly, so that we have a pro-business, pro-job creation environment. So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains rates, allow for 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way toward job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment."

(From the June 26 CBS Face the Nation Interview)

On fixing the deficit : "I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this." (Alternet.org)
“Social Security, like I told you, is out of money. This year it is borrowing from the general treasury.” (Politifact.com. For the truth on Social Security's finances, see this fact sheet.)
"So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains, right, allow for a 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way towards job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment. But right now, businesses are looking at the uncertainty. They know that 'Obamacare' is coming down the pike. The Congressional Budget Office estimated 'Obamacare' will cost the economy 800,000 jobs." (Health Justice Network)

Tim Pawlenty

"There's a group of folks who say look, pay the outside creditors first. So there is no default. Take away that concern. Take away that fear. And then have the debate be about the rest of the domestic spending. That is something that I have advocated for many months" (CBS News)
"I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors." (Politifact.com. For our perspective on corporate taxes, see this fact sheet.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell

[On raising taxes] “That’s not serious[ and it is my hope that the president will take those off the table today so that we can have a serious discussion about our country’s economic future.” (Washington Post)
“Not only is there bipartisan opposition, the consequences of massive new tax hikes would be fewer jobs.” (Washington Post)
“Throwing more tax revenue into the mix is simply not going to produce the desired result. It won't pass.” (Christian Post)
“Well, I think we've gotten to the point where we ought to put aside our talking points and get down to what can actually pass. As I was just trying to point out to you, the whole business of raising taxes, regardless of how you go about it, is something that this Congress is not likely to do. The last Congress wasn't willing to do it. So we need to talk about what can pass.” (ABC's This Week)
“We have a spending problem. We don't have a problem because we tax too little.” (Slate.com)

Rep. Eric Cantor

“We have hit the point at which we are really talking about big numbers, and everything, as I’ve said before, is on the table, except tax increases. That includes Medicare, Medicaid and the other mandatory as well as discretionary spending.” (The Washington Post)

Jon Kyl

“If you want to kill the economy, raise taxes. Are we going to vote to absolutely put another anchor around the neck of the economy which is struggling to try to recover here? Absolutely not. It's terrible policy.” (The Hill)

Newt Gingrich

"The left understands how to destroy the American economy. They're working at it diligently." (Reuters)
“Democrats are faced with a real crisis. The president is about to preside over the United States defaulting on its debt — he can’t do that. So he is going to have to in the end agree to something. The Republicans are in a position to say they are very happy to avoid a default if he will sign a spending-cut bill.” (newsmax.com)

Gov. Rick Perry

"I think in America from time to time we have to go through some difficult times — and I think we’re going through those difficult economic times for a purpose, to bring us back to those Biblical principles of you know, you don’t spend all the money. You work hard for those six years and you put up that seventh year in the warehouse to take you through the hard times. And not spending all of our money. Not asking for Pharaoh to give everything to everybody and to take care of folks because at the end of the day, it’s slavery. We become slaves to government." (ThinkProgress.org)

Herman Cain

"I don’t think the current minimum wage is necessary because most companies are paying higher than the minimum wage." (ThinkProgress.org)
"We must empower our economy with lower taxes on businesses and workers. All we have to do is look at the success of the 1960s and 1980s." (The Daily Caller. Tax rates today are actually lower than they were in the 1980s and especially the 1960s. But U.S. economic growth was slower in the 2000s than it was in either decade. For more on the consequences of conservative economic policy, read this.)

Mitt Romney

"We are only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy." (Politifact.com)

Ron Paul

“We must completely revamp the U.S. tax system and move to a territorial model that does not tax foreign source income... We need to abolish the income tax altogether.” (Ron Paul campaign site)

Barack Obama’s Statements on Social Security

Isaiah J. Poole — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:21:43 -0500

The following are key statements made by Barack Obama as president and prior to his presidency about Social Security.

Speech to the AARP Convention on the COLA and the retirement age

September 6, 2008
“But his [McCain’s] campaign has gone even further, suggesting that the best answer to the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. I will not do either.”
Transcript: http://completeobamaspeecharchive.com/090608_convention.htm
Video: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/BarackOb
Key clip is at 8:40 to 9:50

Presidential Campaign Video/Organizing for America, Blueprint for Change: Social Security

October 16, 2008
“The best way forward is to first look to adjust the cap on the payroll tax. ... Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my proposal. ... What it does allow us to do is extend the life of Social Security without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.”
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkDAdVJpF1U&feature=player_embedded

Meet the Press interview on not cutting benefits and uncapping the payroll tax

November 11, 2007
“And when you look at how we should approach Social Security, I believe that cutting retire—cutting benefits is not the right answer. I meet too many seniors all across the country who are struggling with the limited Social Security benefits that they have. That raising the retirement age is not the best option, particularly when we’ve got people who are still in manufacturing.”

“Well, when I—I am going to be listening to any ideas that are presented, but I think that the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected.”
Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/ns/meet_the_press/

Op-ed in Quad City Times, Iowa, opposing benefit cuts and raising the retirement age

September 21, 2007
“Second, I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors. One possible option, for example, is to raise the cap on the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax. If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”
Article: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/21/fixedincome_seniors_can_expect.php

State of the Union Speech 2010

January 27, 2010
“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.”

“Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we’ll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.”
Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address

State of the Union Speech 2009

February 24, 2009
“To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security. Comprehensive health care reform is the best way to strengthen Medicare for years to come. And we must also begin a conversation on how to do the same for Social Security, while creating tax-free universal savings accounts for all Americans.”
Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress/

MTV appearance featuring question on the solvency of Social Security, payroll tax and “all options on the table”

October 14, 2010
The Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security could go into the red as early as 2018. And it seems to me there are only three options if we want to fix it: raise the retirement age, raise payroll taxes or reduce benefits. I know in the past you’ve said that all options are on the table, but do you have a limit for what would be acceptable changes for each of those three things?:

Well, first of all, let me just say something about these projections. According to the Congressional Budget Office, what’ll happen is around 2018, we’ll start taking in less money than we’re sending out. So right now Social Security generally runs a surplus; that surplus will start getting drained around 2018.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Social Security is going bankrupt. It doesn’t mean that Social Security is going away. What it does mean is if we don’t do anything about it, right around the time — you guys are a little young for you to retire — but let’s say when I’m retired. (Laughter.) What’s going to end up happening is, is that if you expected a dollar of benefits, you’ll only get about 75 cents, so people won’t get the full bargain that they thought they were getting when they paid into Social Security.

That’s why we’ve got to strengthen it. And I have said that all options are on the table. I think we’ve got to look at how we preserve it for the next generation. I do think that the best way to do it would be to look at the fact that right now you only pay Social Security taxes up to about $106,000, and after that, you don’t pay any Social Security tax. So that means Warren Buffett, who makes more than $100,000 a year, the vast bulk of his income, he doesn’t pay Social Security taxes on it. That could be modified or changed in a way that would help extend the solvency of Social Security.

But this is an area where — I’m sorry, what was the young lady from Austin — this is where Cynthia’s point about bipartisanship is so important. I set up a bipartisan fiscal commission that is made up of Republicans and Democrats to sit and meet over the last several months to start looking at how we generally start reducing our debt and our deficit so we’re not leaving it to the next generation. They’re supposed to report back to me after the election because we specifically designed it so they wouldn’t get caught up with silly season and would be able to just focus on what makes sense.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DhBi2i3UZc

Other statements on uncapping the payroll tax

September 22, 2007 — “If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,000,” Obama wrote this week in an Iowa newspaper, “we could eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall.”

September 6, 2007 — “I think that lifting the cap is probably going to be the best option. Now we’ve got to have a process [like the one] back in 1983. We need another one. And I think I’ve said before everything should be on the table. My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable to the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem: young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. We should be willing to do anything that will strengthen the system, to make sure that that we are being true to those who are already retired, as well as young people in the future.”

April 27, 2008 — “In terms of raising the cap on the payroll tax, right now everybody who’s making $102,000 or less pays 100% of payroll tax on 100% of their income. There are about 3% to 4% of Americans who are above $102,000 in income every year. So if you want to talk about who’s middle class, me giving cuts to folks making $60,000 or $70,000, and potentially asking more from friends of mine like Warren Buffett. That’s a debate I’m happy to have with John McCain, because it’s the people making $75,000, $50,000, $60,000 who are hurting.”- Fox News Interview 2007

April 16, 2008 — “What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don’t have to pay beyond $97,000 a year. Now most firefighters & teachers, they’re not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6% of the population does. And I’ve also said that I’d be willing to look at exempting people who are making slightly above that.”
Q: But that’s a tax on people under $250,000.
“That’s why I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between. This is an option that I would strongly consider, because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits, or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people making less than $97,000 a year--those are not good policy options”- Philadelphia Primary Debate

Social Security is not in crisis

August 18, 2010 — The president acknowledged at a small town hall gathering in Columbus, Ohio, Wednesday that the pension fund “has to be tweaked because the population is getting older” but said Republicans’ plans to drastically overhaul the program are wrong.
“Social Security is not in crisis,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it.”

October 30, 2007 — “Social Security is not in crisis; it is a fundamentally sound system, but it does have a problem, long-term. We’ve got 78 million baby boomers, who are going to be retiring over the next couple of decades. That means more retirees, fewer workers to support those retirees. We are going to have to do something about it. The best idea is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, potentially exempting middle-class folks, but making sure that the wealthy are paying more of their fair share, a little bit more.”

2008 campaign website statement — “Obama and Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama and Biden will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.

"Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).”

National Press Club speech

April 26, 2005 — "Since Social Security was first signed into law almost seventy years ago, at a time when FDR's opponents were calling it a hoax that would never work and some likened it to communism, there has been movement after movement to get rid of the program for purely ideological reasons. Because some still believe that we can't solve the problems we face as one American community; they think this country works better when we're left to face fate by ourselves.

"I understand this view. There's something bracing about the Social Darwinist idea, the idea that there isn't a problem that the unfettered free market can't solve. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life's lottery...and doesn't consider who our parents were, or the education we received, or the right breaks that came at the right time.

"But I couldn't disagree more. If we privatize Social Security, what will we tell retirees whose investments in the stock market went badly? We're sorry? Keep working? You're on your own?

"When people's expected benefits get cut and they have to choose between their groceries and their prescriptions, what will we say then? That's not our problem?

"When our debt climbs so high that our children face sky-high taxes just as they're starting their first job, what will we tell them? Deal with it yourselves?

"This isn't how America works. This isn't how we saved millions of seniors from a life of poverty seventy years ago. This isn't how we sent a greatest generation of veterans to college so they could build the greatest middle-class in history. And this isn't how we should face the challenges of this new century either."

Progressive Groups Respond to the White House Deficit Commission Report

Eric Hunt — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:43:06 -0500

Richard Trumka, President, AFL-CIO

"With this report the Deficit Commission once again tells working Americans to ‘Drop Dead.’ No proposal on fiscal issues is serious that leaves the Bush tax cuts for the rich in place while raising taxes on the middle class and slashing Social Security and Medicare. All commission members should vote no on this misguided plan. All members of Congress should also oppose these job-killing policies if they are raised in future legislation or budgets.

Our nation IS facing an immediate jobs crisis. Last night 800,000 Americans lost their unemployment insurance, and that number will grow to two million by Christmas. One hundred workers from across the country have come to Washington today to lobby Congress to extend unemployment insurance. It is unconscionable that this commission is proposing to slash these very workers’ Social Security and Medicare.

This whole discussion reeks of hypocrisy. The faux deficit hawks on the commission – and Senators who claim unemployment insurance must be paid for -- have no problem clamoring for more unpaid Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

We need to focus now on the jobs deficit. Fifteen million people are out of work, and another eleven million have given up looking or are working part-time involuntarily. We need to end tax breaks that send American jobs overseas and invest in jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and green technologies.

To address long-term deficit issues the AFL-CIO supports the core principles underlying the “Investing in America's Economy Budget Blueprint.” We need to put jobs and economic growth first; we must invest in education and infrastructure to be competitive in the 21st century; Wall Street and the wealthy must bear their share of the burden; and we need to deal with the growth of health care costs."

Mary Kay Henry, International President, SEIU

“This proposal is a jobs killer at a time when our number one priority must be putting America back to work. The American people expect real solutions to create good jobs that support a family and bring fairness to our economy.

It's time for our policies to move beyond the Beltway to reflect the real world. For too long, we've forced the American people to pay the price for the failed economic policies that plunged our economy into crisis and racked up our debt. We need to reduce the deficit - and we can do so without breaking the back of American workers. We can do so without cutting the jobs of nurses, educators, first responders, fire fighters, and millions of other Americans.

What the proposals by Representative Schakowsky, EPI, Demos and the Century Foundation, and the Citizens' Commission all demonstrate is that we can reduce the deficit without cutting jobs or undermining the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare. These proposals offer real solutions to move our economy forward, reject the failed policies that created our current crisis, and respond to the demands of the American people to create good jobs.

We can reduce our deficit, create jobs, and restore economic security to our communities. It's time for our leaders to find the political courage to invest in real job creation and challenge those responsible for the crisis we face.”

Tamara Draut, Vice President of Policy and Programs, Demos

"The final recommendations released today illustrate how out of touch many on the Fiscal Commission, and many of those wielding influence in the Beltway, are with the everyday economic concerns and fears of Americans everywhere. This plan ignores the need for immediate public investments to spur job creation, relies too heavily on discretionary spending cuts, and slashes Social Security at a time when fewer Americans can count on a secure retirement.

Outrageously, it embarks on a job-killing austerity path next fall (fiscal year 2012), when unemployment is still projected to be near 10 percent. In addition to imperiling the recovery in the short-term, the arbitrarily low debt target also hamstrings our ability to invest in our own economy – as our global competitors are doing.

Are the $4 trillion Bush tax cuts (the same amount saved by the Commission’s proposals) worth sacrificing America’s place in the world? The Our Fiscal Security blueprint shows that we can rebuild the middle class, invest in our own economy, and put our nation's finances on a sustainable path. The Commission’s recommendations would guarantee that America’s greatest days our behind us."

Eric Kingson, Co-Chair, Strengthen Social Security Campaign

“Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Erskine Bowle’s and Alan Simpson’s latest proposal to radically change Social Security once again slashes Social Security benefits for most Americans, now and in the future. Again, it disregards the will of the American people who do not want Social Security benefits cut. The Simpson-Bowles proposal was dead on arrival once; it should be considered even deader the second time around.

Their plan would reduce the COLA when it should be increased because it does not keep pace with health care costs. It would raise the retirement age from 67 to 69 for today’s young workers and cut benefits overall by 17 percent to 36 percent for young, middle-income Americans entering the workforce today. (See chart showing the benefit cut to a medium wage earner.)

About 60 percent of the House Democratic caucus – 136 members – have written to President Obama opposing all Social Security cuts, including raising the retirement age. Cuts to Social Security are opposed by 8 out of 10 Americans – from Tea Partyers to union households, young and old – according to a recent poll of Election Day voters by Lake Research Partners. And 2 out of 3 Americans support lifting the payroll tax cap so that all earnings are subject to the tax, which currently taxes income up to $106,800.

Yesterday the Strengthen Social Security Campaign members made tens of thousands of calls to their Senators and Representatives. Their message: Do not cut Social Security. Social Security did not cause the federal deficit. Cutting benefits will not fix the deficit. It is time for the Fiscal Commission and elected officials who would undermine the economic security of Americans to heed this call. If elected officials do not, the 2012 elections could be very ugly indeed."

Justin Ruben, Executive Director, MoveOn.Org

"The Fiscal Commission report confirms that elites in Washington intend to ask middle class Americans to once again shoulder the burden to make up for the irresponsible spending of the Bush-era. Raising the retirement age and cutting Social Security--a program that cannot by law contribute to the deficit---for hard-working Americans while giving giant corporations a tax break is irresponsible and immoral. If it hopes to maintain credibility with 98 percent of Americans who are not millionaires, Congress must reject this plan and instead focus on reigning in the deficit by ending tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.”

Ben Cohen, Founder, TrueMajority.org

"To the editor:

We have a big problem in this country and it looks like the co-chairs of the President’s fiscal commission are ready to face it. For decades we have wasted the money we should have been spending on kids and the environment by buying overpriced weapons that don’t work and staffing Cold War-era military bases around the world. Now it seems those bad ideas are on the chopping block to the tune of $100 billion in cuts.

Groups as diverse as the Center for Defense Information, CATO, Tea Partyers, TrueMajority.org and USAction all agree. These cuts don’t need to be a partisan issue. Many of the Republicans elected to the new Congress have pledged to put Pentagon spending under a microscope, and I know many Democrats would rather spend our tax dollars on essential things like education and health care – or perhaps programs to create jobs and bring down the unemployment rate. (Recent studies indicate that the Pentagon is just about the worst jobs generator of all federal expenditures.)

Politicians on both sides of the aisle should welcome a real debate on Pentagon spending. Every weapon system, every proposal to increase the size of the force, every plan for deploying our military abroad or expanding current operations must be scrutinized.

Thank you President Obama for taking these cuts seriously. Our children thank you too.

Ben Cohen"

John S. Irons, Research and Policy Director, EPI

"Today, the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform presented a revised version of their plan, but also announced that a final vote would be delayed until later this week.

With the delay, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Bowles-Simpson plan will not receive the required 14 votes to send the report to the President and Congress. The rejection of the proposal should not be seen as a failure to take deficit reduction seriously, but rather that the policy approach adopted by the co-chairs is flawed.

Most fundamentally, the report fails to fully acknowledge the current economic crisis. The report states that the reductions in annual appropriations would require “serious belt-tightening” beginning in just 10 months, despite the fact that the unemployment rate is expected to remain between 9% and 10% at that point. Despite paying lip-service to a payroll tax holiday, the plan includes no concrete, immediate action to create jobs or to spur economic growth in the near term.

We sometimes hear that having a long-term plan for attaining fiscal balance opens up the possibility for a rigorous near-term intervention to create jobs, which requires deficit spending. In this plan we get extensive long-term pain for no short-term gain.

The Bowles-Simpson plan also continues to misdiagnose the problem by focusing on cutbacks in domestic investments and Social Security—neither of which is a prime driver of the deficit in the short- or long-run. Nearly one-quarter of the near-term reductions (2012-15) in the report come from blunt-force cutbacks to domestic investments; however, the report is short on specific recommendations about how to accomplish this. Instead the proposal primarily recommends budget process changes, agency reviews, and even the creation of yet another committee to identify savings. Rather than taking on the hard choices, the Bowles-Simpson plan kicks the deficit-reduction can down the road. But the plan’s failure to explicitly reject a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—a giveaway that will add $700 billion to the deficit—is perhaps the clearest example of ducking hard choices.

Although the overall direction remains flawed, this proposal does have some positive elements. In particular, its recommendation to reduce spending by the Department of Defense, its attempts to build on cost-savings measures included in the Affordable Care Act, and some of its illustrative tax policies, such as its treatment of capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. However, it falls short of a comprehensive proposal in two critical ways: its inadequate approach to revenue collection and its counter-productive approach to job creation and economic growth."

Karen Higgins,Co-President, National Nurses United

The revised, final report by the president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility is an "unwarranted, outrageous attack on the health, safety, and retirement security of millions of nurses and tens of millions of other working people and should be immediately rejected by the Obama administration and Congress," said the nation's largest union and professional association of registered nurses today.

"It is time for the White House and Congress to stand up and send a clear message to the American people that they will not agree to further erode our retirement security and standard of living while continuing to promote further tax breaks and concessions to Wall Street and the most wealthy among us," said Karen Higgins, RN, co-president of the-160,000-member National Nurses United.

Among its most egregious proposals, the report calls for raising the retirement age to 69 and the age for early retirement to 64, which especially targets workers with the most physically demanding jobs, including nurses who suffer more back injuries, for example, than any other employment group. NNU also opposes the proposal to cut benefits of up to 36 percent of younger workers, reducing the annual cost-of-living adjustment, and the decision to put far more of the burden of deficit reduction on working people than those on the top.

"Most long-term RNs worked for years with substandard pensions, and many now face new demands by employers to sharply erode their retirement plans. Therefore, cuts in Social Security would hit nurses especially hard. Raising the retirement age to 69 would force nurses, like other working people with physically demanding, stressful employment to delay retirement, at risk to themselves and their patients," Higgins said.

Cook County RN Dorothy Ahmad, a Chicago resident, criticized Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a commission member, who said that raising the retirement age to 69 would be "acceptable to me."

"How would he like his nurse to be 69, rolling into his hospital room in a wheelchair or scooter with his medication, trying to take care of him? At 69 years old, a nurse should be able to retire in dignity with security for herself and her family, not be forced to still be working at risk to her patients and herself. Chicago nurses are disappointed with Sen. Durbin’s response," Ahmad said.

Higgins, who works in critical care, said she "cannot even fathom nurses at 69 still being required to work. You need to have the highest mental and physical alertness to be able to provide safe care. The idea that nurses would be able to do that at 69 is dangerous to patients, but forcing us to be in a position that we would have to is disgraceful."

Retired California RN Elizabeth Pataki of Sacramento said protecting Social Security is vital for the many RNs who have been forced to "retire early with back injuries and a long work history that involved great stresses on their backs and joints. Most nurses cannot work to the usual age of retirement."

Too many RNs, said Pataki, "have seen their pensions lessened and their savings lessened, and don't have a comfortable margin to retire on. So Social Security is critical. To require them to work longer is unacceptable and will further handicap a nurse for the rest of her life."

Women are also particularly threatened by the proposal, said Higgins. "More women are living below the poverty level and must depend on Social Security. They are frequently paid less than men and are also likely to move in and out of the workforce as they raise families and therefore the benefits they receive are less."

"We see elderly people coming in who are just trying desperately to hold on, to provide for themselves and sometimes others. They are trying to pay their rent, put food on the table, and pay for their medications. It is often the medications that they give up, running the risk of being declared 'noncompliant.' Many are helpless, having nowhere to turn."

"I think it is disgusting that we should even consider cutting back on Social Security benefits or reducing Medicare provision."

Craig Jennings, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy, OMB Watch

OMB Watch today panned the plan proposed by the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to reshape the nation’s fiscal priorities. While the plan contains some praiseworthy provisions targeted at the tax code and the federal budget process, overall, it represents an unfortunate step backward in meeting the needs of the nation’s working families.

Craig Jennings, Director of Federal Fiscal Policy at OMB Watch, said, "The commission, in its zeal to balance the budget in what it sees as a politically palatable way, failed to equitably distribute the burden of deficit reduction among all Americans."

Certain elements of the commission’s plan, "The Moment of Truth," deserve to be highlighted for the improvements that they would make in the federal budget process, including ending the abuse of emergency spending and setting aside funds to pay for unforeseen disasters. Also praiseworthy is the commission’s recognition that the $1 trillion in tax breaks found in the tax code, known as tax expenditures, are a form of spending and should be treated as such by Congress.

Unfortunately, as a whole, the proposed plan is a misguided attempt to confront the nation’s short- and long-term fiscal challenges. It ultimately balances the budget on the backs of the middle class, cripples the ability of the federal government to protect Americans, and diverts revenue enhancements to decrease tax rates for the wealthy instead of to reduce the deficit.

The plan also fails to confront the primary driver of the long-term fiscal imbalance – rapidly rising health care costs. While the commission recommends certain changes in Medicare and Medicaid that would curtail some costs through 2020, it has no solutions to stem the doubling of federal spending on health care between 2020 and 2050. Additionally, the commission has seen fit to put forward benefit reductions and tax increases to “fix” Social Security, yet Social Security plays no significant role in the degradation of the nation’s short- and long-term deficits.

The commission’s plan also unwisely places an arbitrary cap on federal revenues. Jennings noted, "By restricting the federal government’s ability to provide sufficient revenue for our national priorities, the plan would make it even harder to responsibly balance the federal budget, especially if unforeseen circumstances arise."

At the same time, setting random caps on discretionary spending, like the ones in the proposal, would seriously hinder the ability of the federal government to provide working families with vital services such as education, employment resources, transportation infrastructure, and access to nutrition.

Jennings added, "Should the commission vote to approve this plan for congressional consideration, OMB Watch would strongly encourage Congress to reject it." He noted that other plans, such as those by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) (see http://schakowsky.house.gov/images/stories/1118_Schakowsky_Deficit_Reduc...), the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits and America’s Economic Future (see http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/citizens-commission-report-fina...), and Our Fiscal Security (see “Investing in America’s Economy: A Budget Blueprint for Economic Recovery and Fiscal Responsibility,” http://www.ourfiscalsecurity.org/storage/Blueprint_OFS.pdf), do far more to address the actual budget problems we face today while strengthening that which makes our nation great.

Nancy Duff Campbell, Co-President, National Women's Law Center

“The plan proposed today by the Co-Chairs of the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform contains the same flaws as the one they released a few weeks ago: it threatens the economic security of women and their families as well as efforts to rebuild a strong economy.

The nation’s most crucial priorities in the short term should be to create jobs and promote a sustainable recovery. In the long term, the priority should be to reduce the deficit by a far greater reliance on additional revenues from a fair and responsible tax system than the Co-Chairs propose.

The Co-Chairs’ plan relies heavily on deep cuts to federal programs that are especially important to women, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and critical domestic discretionary programs. Overall only one-quarter of the nearly $3.9 trillion in deficit reduction that the plan claims to achieve by the end of the decade would come from revenue increases.

Although one stated principle is that the plan should not disrupt the economic recovery, the plan’s spending cuts are scheduled to take effect before a full recovery is likely. These cuts will jeopardize that recovery and inflict further harm on the victims of the economic downturn. The vast majority of the plan’s revenue reforms—already smaller than its spending cuts—would not start until after the program cuts begin.

The cuts proposed to Social Security would be particularly painful for women, who depend more on Social Security than men do. The plan would cut benefits for current retirees by reducing the cost of living adjustment, eroding the value of benefits for women who live longer than men. It would reduce benefits for all types of beneficiaries, including retired and disabled workers, widows and children, by changing the benefits formula. It would increase the retirement age, further reducing benefits for today’s young workers. And it would reduce benefits below scheduled levels for all but the poorest beneficiaries.

In addition, many of the plan’s health cuts would disproportionately hurt women and simply shift costs and cut programs that women depend on. Among the harmful cuts, the plan would transfer more Medicare costs to beneficiaries, requiring low-income beneficiaries to pay higher out-of-pocket costs. For example, a recipient at 200 percent of poverty would have to spend a shocking 35 percent of income on medical costs before reaching an out-of-pocket cap. This cost-shifting threatens the financial and physical health of vulnerable seniors on Medicare—the majority of whom are women.

The Co-Chairs’ proposal stands in stark contrast to more responsible alternatives released by Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Our Fiscal Security, and the Citizens’ Commission on Jobs, Deficits, and America’s Economic Future. These proposals address the nation’s immediate needs by promoting short-term spending to stimulate growth and create jobs. They also simultaneously reduce the deficit while preserving Social Security benefits, reducing inequality in the tax code and providing effective options for controlling the growth of health care costs.

The Commission members need to stand up for women and their families and reject the Co-Chairs’ proposal. Jeopardizing the well-being of women and families is no way to improve the nation’s bottom line."

Speaking Truth About Saving Social Security

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:50:00 -0400

Social Security is under political siege, thanks to a disinformation campaign by conservative opponents and a few widely held misunderstandings about how the program works and its impact on the federal deficit. Here are some basic facts you need to know about Social Security and what it will take to strengthen the program for future generations.

The Social Security system isn’t “going broke.”

Social Security is currently running a surplus. It is true that after 2015, based on current tax policies and assumptions about economic growth, Social Security's trustees in their 2010 report say the program faces a modest long-term financing shortfall of tax revenue and interest on Trust Fund assets. That's when the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program will start to take in less tax revenue than it pays out in benefits. But even after 2016, the trust funds will continue to grow because of interest on its assets through 2023. Social Security will gradually draw down all its reserves before the end of 2037 if Congress takes no action whatsoever. At that point Social Security will have sufficient resources to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits. Still, that’s hardly “going broke.”

Social Security isn't worsening the deficit.

Social Security has not contributed one dime to the federal deficit. In fact, Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus today that is projected to increase to $4.2 trillion in 2025. Social Security is funded by a dedicated tax, and it has built up assets over the years to cover the benefits it pays, just as any other insurance program does. The immediate causes of the nation’s recent large deficits have been President Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the 2008-2009 economic downturn and the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The real long‐term deficit challenge comes almost entirely from health-care costs. Medicare and Medicaid costs are projected to grow from about a bit more than 5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product today to 17.2 percent in 2081, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Social Security costs are projected by actuaries to grow only from about 4.8 percent of GDP today to just over 6 percent by 2035, and then decline to 5.9 percent of GDP in 2050 and beyond.

Current demographic trends aren't a surprise.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson, the Republican co-chairman of the White House deficit commission and a leading proponent of reducing Social Security benefits, once said that the creators of Social Security in the 1930s “never dreamed that the life expectancy [would increase] from 57 years of age to 78 or 75 or whatever.” That's incorrect. Social Security’s actuaries as far back as the late 1930s accurately predicted within 0.3 percentage points the percentage of the American population today that would be over 65. In the 1930s, infant and child mortality rates were much higher than today, and that obviously lowered average life expectancy. But at the time the first Social Security checks were being mailed out in the late 1930s, life expectancies for those who made it to age 65 were 77.7 years for men and 79.7 years for women. Today's demographic trends are not a surprise and don’t need to be viewed as a symptom of a crisis.

You don’t need to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age to secure its future.

You could instead make modest changes to increase revenues into the system. Currently, only earned income below about $107,000 is subject to Social Security taxes. Lifting that cap would solve Social Security’s long-term solvency problem. Or you could at least set the cap so that it covers 90 percent of the earned income of all workers, as Congress originally intended; because high-end salaries have exploded while low-end salaries have stagnated, the current cap covers only 83 percent of earned income. A report by the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2009 offered several other approaches to maintaining Social Security’s solvency that Congress can consider. Also, by diversifying the trust fund portfolio as private pensions do, you could provide a higher rate of return while maintaining the security of the assets. Gradually investing the assets in broad-based stock funds over two decades, up to a maximum of 20 percent of plan assets, eliminates about a quarter of the projected shortfall.

In fact, if anything, Social Security benefits need to be strengthened.

The average Social Security benefit—$1,155 per month, or about $13,860 per year for a retired worker in 2009—is only slightly higher than the U.S. poverty thresholds. And it’s less than what a retired person actually needs to meet all of their basic needs when you take into the account the rising cost of medical care and housing. The average retiree still paying a mortgage on their home would need almost twice what they’re receiving in Social Security in order to make ends meet, according to one recent report.

A popular argument is that since people are living longer, we should raise the retirement age. Under current law, the age at which people are eligible for full Social Security benefits is set to increase to age 67 for people born in 1960 or later. That means Social Security’s full retirement age is already much older than eligibility ages in private (or public) pension plans, which remain 65 or earlier. Moreover, it is older than the ages for penalty-free withdrawals from 401(k)s or IRAs (59½). Also, consider that, according to a Center for Economic and Policy research study, 45 percent of workers 58 and older work in jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult working conditions; it is neither fair nor humane to ask these workers to put their health and perhaps their lives at additional risk. Finally, at a time when some economists argue that the country is going into a long-term period of historically high unemployment, it makes no sense to force older workers to stay in the workforce longer than they want.

The public supports strengthening Social Security.

Broad majorities of the public oppose cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the deficit (81 percent in a fall 2010 Social Security Works poll by Lake Research) and raising the retirement age (66 percent in a 2010 Campaign for America's Future poll by Democracy Corps). These polls and others show that almost two-thirds of the public would instead support lifting the payroll tax cap on incomes higher than $106,000. Majorities would also support other revenue-raising measures affecting the wealthiest Americans.

Additional Resources

MoveOn.org: "Top Five Social Security Myths"
Strengthen Social Security website
OurFuture.org Strengthen Social Security blog page (2008).

Updated January 7, 2011.

A Progressive Approach To Deficit Reduction

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:54:17 -0400

FACT: Social Security is not contributing to the deficit. The 2010 annual report of the Board of Trustees stated that the combined Social Security trust funds ran a surplus of $122 billion last year, with a reserve of $2.5 trillion. Social Security is projected to be able to pay full benefits to retirees until 2037, even without policy changes.

FACT: There is ample time for Congress to review options for adjusting the Social Security system through the usual legislative process. Congress should not hide behind an unelected, unaccountable commission. Since 1935, Social Security legislation has always had the benefit of full hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, executive sessions giving all members a chance to offer amendments, and unlimited debate and opportunity for amendments in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Instead of shifting responsibility and ducking accountability, Congress should do its job.

FACT: More than 52 million people are depending on monthly benefits this year. Wounded soldiers and their spouses and children receive Social Security benefits, as well as the families of soldiers who have died for their country. Social Security continues to provide benefits to the families of those who lost their lives in the 9/11 attacks, and millions of others whose families have met unthinkable calamity.

FACT: Benefit cuts are not necessary to guarantee Social Security's long-term solvency. For one thing, policies that lower unemployment and increase wages for middle-class workers will mean additional dollars flowing into the Social Security trust funds. Adjusting the percentage of earned income subject to Social Security tax to the level that it was in 1983, when the tax ceiling was last adjusted, would significantly improve the long-term outlook.

FACT: The solution to Medicare and Medicaid's rising costs can be found by cutting the cost of health care and fixing our broken system, not by cutting services. We need to build on the health care reforms passed in 2010 to continue to drive cost-efficiency and improve care.

FACT: The projected deficit—which seems like a huge number—isn't that huge. As pointed out by Paul Krugman and Dean Baker, our debt-service burden is about the same as that of 1992 under President H.W. Bush.

FACT: There are many good options for cutting the deficit, as is clear from the "don't kill growth and jobs" statement signed by more than 300 economists and civic leaders in September. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that current tax and spending policies will add $6.2 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. Implementing the eight policy suggestions in the statement would raise an estimated $5.5 billion over that period. We could save about $100 billion a year in military spending, which consumes more than half of our discretionary budget, by letting go of Cold War-style weapons systems and spending practices that are no longer relevant to today's geopolitical climate. Plus, we should reform our corporate welfare system—subsidies for everything from corn to crude oil—and target tax breaks and subsidies on areas of broadest public benefit. In short, we can bring our deficit down to a sustainable level while still making public investments in the foundational elements of a strong economy and nation—without increasing burdens on working families.

The Progressive Solution

Rick Perlstein — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:32:22 -0500

Progressives need to take a broad and bold approach to helping Americans establish a solid three-legged stool of retirement security.

Make the economy work. Most importantly, progressives must champion economic policies that benefit the many and not simply the few. With full employment and rising wages, Americans can save better, workers can demand better retirement benefits from employers and Social Security's projected shortfall can be reduced. Universal health care would reduce what families have to spend on health care costs and protect seniors against soaring drug and medical costs. Improved energy policies can help Americans save better by sparing them from rapidly-rising gas and home heating prices.

Strengthen Social Security. Progressives must work to strengthen Social Security and protect it from future assaults.

Hold companies accountable for pensions. Progressives must hold companies to their existing pension obligations. At the very least, progressives should require the following.

Every company must provide a retirement program for its workers, supplemented with an employer contribution.

The shop floor must be treated the same as the top floor. If the CEO has a defined benefit pension, workers should get the same; if the CEO has retirement stock options, workers should also. If worker pensions are cut back for a company in distress, CEO pensions should be as well.

Congress must require companies to fund the pension commitments they make. Congress must shore up the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's balance sheet to help workers whose companies go belly-up. At the same time, worker pension commitments should be at the front of the line, not the back of the line, in corporate bankruptcy proceedings.

Help Americans save. Progressives should also champion new ideas to help with personal savings. Congress has tried to help with tax deductions for retirement accounts, but this mostly helps the affluent at the top of the pay scale. These benefits should be consolidated into one tax-free savings account, in which the government provides a partial match for the savings of low-income workers (who don't benefit from the Bush tax breaks).

Start investment accounts. Every American should be provided with an investment account at birth a small sum that will expand tax-free over time and could be tapped to pay for higher education, housing, or retirement. Conservatives will like creating a new generation of investors; progressives will like giving poor and working people a chance to build up assets from birth.

What You Might Not Have Learned About the President's Social Security Plan

Roger Hickey — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:57:23 -0400

Because Social Security reform is a complex issue, and because some of the President’s remarks in his April 28 press conference left room for misinterpretation, viewers of the press conference may have been left with an inaccurate impression of the President’s Social Security proposals. Some key facts that should be noted are:

The President’s plan would cut Social Security benefits for anyone born after 1950 who earns more than about $20,000.

While the President focused on the large benefit cuts his plan would impose on high-income workers, all workers earning more than about $20,000 would have their benefits cut.
The reason for this is that under the plan, the bottom 30 percent of workers — those earning below about $20,000 today — would continue to have their benefit levels determined by the current formula, known as wage indexing. For everyone else, though, benefit levels would be determined by a combination of wage indexing and price indexing (for middle-income workers) or by price indexing alone (for upper-income workers), both of which produce lower benefits than the current formula.
These benefit reductions would apply not just to retirees but also to survivors. If someone dies and leaves behind young children, those young children will see their benefits reduced under the President’s plan.
For middle-income workers, the benefit cuts would be the largest in Social Security’s seven-decade history.
The 1983 Social Security reform cut benefits for average earners (those earning roughly $36,000 today) by 17 percent over 46 years.
The President’s plan would cut benefits for these workers by 28 percent over 70 years.
For workers with incomes somewhat above average, the benefit cuts would be nearly as large as those imposed on very-high-income workers — and larger than if nothing were done to shore up Social Security.
Under the President’s plan, a worker who makes 160 percent of the average wage (or a little under $60,000 today) and retires in 2075 would experience a benefit cut of more than 40 percent. That cut is nearly as large (as a percentage of the worker's promised benefits) as the cut that would be imposed on someone making several million dollars a year.
Looked at another way, the benefit cut for a worker who makes $60,000 would be deeper than if nothing were done to restore Social Security solvency and the program paid benefits based solely on incoming tax revenue after the trust fund is exhausted.
This is true for all workers making $55,000 or more: they all would be better off if Social Security were allowed to become insolvent than if the President’s plan were adopted.
The President stated that his plan would not affect disability benefits, but the cost savings the White House claims for the plan imply significant cuts in disability benefits.
The “progressive price indexing” plan proposed by Robert Pozen — the plan upon which the President’s plan is based — would close 70 percent of Social Security’s long-term funding shortfall. Similarly, a White House fact sheet claims the President’s plan would close 70 percent of the shortfall.
However, the Pozen plan obtains about one-sixth of its total savings from cuts in disability benefits, which the White House says are not part of its plan.
This leaves three possibilities. One is that the President’s plan involves much larger benefit cuts for retirees than the Pozen plan does, to make up for its lack of cuts in disability benefits. (The benefit cuts cited above are based on the Pozen plan.) The second possibility is that cuts in disability benefits are in fact part of the President’s plan.

The third possibility is that the President’s plan would close less than 70 percent of the Social Security shortfall. A plan that included the retiree benefit cuts in the Pozen plan, a new minimum benefit to “eliminate poverty among future seniors” (which the President promised in his press conference), and no benefit cuts for people with disabilities would eliminate just 57 percent of the Social Security shortfall. In other words, the job of fixing Social Security’s long-term problems would be little more than half completed.

Top 10 Facts On Social Security's 70th Anniversary

Bill Scher — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Two Steps Back: African Americans and Latinos will lose ground under Social Security 'Reform."

Eric Lotke — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The DeMint plan to raid the Social Security trust fund

Alex Carter — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400