It’s an election year, and we are quickly approaching the time when working families will have the opportunity to go to the polls and vote for candidates who support policies that protect or expand our rights, raise wages and work for an economy that benefits everyone, not just the wealthy few. We’re going to focus our spotlight on some of the key candidates who care about working families, and one of those candidates is Mark Begich, who is running for U.S. Senate in Alaska.
1. Begich wants to continue growing the Alaska economy and create more good jobs by investing in infrastructure. Begich said, “My top priority is growing Alaska’s economy by creating good jobs right now for Alaskans and investing in critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports and harbors to help create jobs. I secured more than $1 billion to build and fix Alaska’s infrastructure, to create new jobs and expand our economy.”
2. He voted to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. [S. 2223, Vote 117, 4/30/14]
3. He also voted for the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill to ensure that working women receive equal pay for equal work. [S. 2199, Vote 103, 4/9/14]
4. He has consistently defended the rights of working families and earned a lifetime AFL-CIO voting record of 98% from his tenure in Congress.
5. He has worked to bring jobs back home from overseas and to penalize businesses that outsource America’s jobs. [S. 3816, Vote 242, 9/23/10]
6. While many in Congress have called for cuts to programs like Social Security, Begich supports increasing benefits. “When you tell seniors, ‘We want to make sure your dollars rise as your costs do,’ there is automatic excitement because they recognize we understand what they’re going through….Are we for or against helping seniors have a dignified life in their later years? I’m for that.” [The Washington Post, 3/24/14]
7. As a member of both the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, he has pushed for increased funding for the Veterans Affairs (VA) and for innovative programs to provide better access to care and to attract more qualified individuals to work in VA health facilities across the nation. “There are few more important responsibilities we have as a nation than to give proper care to those who have sacrificed so much for us. Since day one in the Senate, I have been fighting to make sure Alaska’s veterans—especially those off the road system in rural villages—receive adequate health care. We have made incredible progress. But we are not done and we cannot ignore the devastating and unacceptable situation happening at VA centers in the rest of the country. Alaska’s first‐in‐the‐nation system is working and it should serve as a model for the rest of the country.” [Alaska Business Monthly, 5/29/14]
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: aflcio, alaska, Bring Jobs Home, Dan Sullivan, labor, Mark Begich, minimum wage, outsourcing, paycheck fairness, secure retirement, social security, union, veterans
The annual reports from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees released today “have good news for all Americans,” said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.
Social Security and Medicare will be there for us and our families if elected leaders listen to the American people and reject calls to cut benefits. Instead of undermining these crucial programs, we must build on their success and adopt measures to strengthen and expand them.
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said the most important lesson from the Social Security report “is that Social Security has a large and growing surplus. Today’s report projects Social Security’s cumulative surplus to be roughly $2.8 trillion in 2014, growing to about $2.9 trillion around 2020.
Trumka noted that while “America’s most important retirement program” will remain strong for many more years to come:
It has become increasingly clear, however, that strengthening Social Security for the future must include improvements in benefits. Social Security remains the sole retirement income plan that is broadly available and that Americans can count on to provide secure lifetime benefits.
The Medicare report, Fiesta said, “reminds us once again that the Affordable Care Act is controlling health care costs.” He said:
It is great news that the life of the Medicare Trust Fund has been extended by another four years to 2030. Attempts to repeal health care reform would only undo the progress we have made in controlling health care costs.
The Social Security Trustees reported once again that the Disability Trust Fund can pay full benefits until 2016, with enough revenue after that time to cover about 80% of promised benefits. Trumka said:
Congress should act soon to ensure disabled workers and their families will continue to receive the benefits they have earned. This can be done by allocating a larger share of current payroll tax contributions to the Disability program, as has been done many times before. Congress should reject calls to misuse this opportunity to undermine the sole source of disability income protection that is working well for America’s families.
Current and future retirees must be wary of those politicians who will use today’s Social Security and Medicare Trustees reports as political cover for radical changes that would put seniors, the disabled and the families of deceased workers at risk.
Read Trumka’s full statement here and Fiesta’s here.
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: aflcio, Alliance for Retired Americans, Medicare, Retirement, Richard Trumka, secure retirement, social security
Earlier today, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) spoke at a Center for American Progress (CAP) event about Republican attempts to use Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) as a way to cut and undercut the whole Social Security system. Rather than sticking with the conventional wisdom that Republicans, the media and even some Democrats cling to, Brown argues that what we should be doing now is not just protecting Social Security and SSDI, we should be expanding the programs.
Here are 13 important facts about SSDI you need to know to counter the right-wing spin:
1. SSDI provides protection for 90% of America’s workers and their families if a life-changing disability or illness stops them from being able to work and bring in enough money.
2. SSDI pays modest benefits, averaging just $1,140 per month, less than most workers make before they qualify for the program.
3. For 80% of beneficiaries, SSDI is the primary or only source of income, and it provides a drastic increase in the quality of life of recipients who might otherwise live in poverty.
4. The eligibility criteria for SSDI are among the strictest in the world and fewer than 40% of applicants are approved.
5. Nearly 20% of beneficiaries die within five years of first obtaining benefits.
6. Nearly 9 million workers with disabilities receive SSDI benefits, including more than 1 million veterans. More than 150,000 spouses and nearly 2 million children also receive benefits.
7. Beneficiaries pay into SSDI as a portion of their Social Security payroll tax. The current tax rate is 6.2% on the first $117,000 of earnings a worker makes. 5.3% goes to the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), the rest goes to the SSDI Trust Fund.
8. Only one-third of private-sector workers has employer-provided long-term disability insurance, and most of those plans often provide less than SSDI. Only 7% of workers who make $12 per hour or less have such insurance. Most private long-term disability insurance plans are too costly for most workers.
9. Most beneficiaries are in their 50s and 60s, with the average age being 53.
10. Fewer than 4% of beneficiaries earned more than $10,000 during the year.
11. The United States ranks 30 out of 34 OECD member countries in terms of replacement benefit payouts for workers with disabilities.
12. A temporary reallocation of how the 6.2% payroll tax is divided between SSDI and OASI would ensure that both trust funds would be able to remain fully solvent until 2033 and would alleviate the shortage in SSDI funds caused by demographic trends.
13. Beneficiaries face a wide range of significant disabilities, with many having multiple impairments, which include:
- 31.8% have a “primary diagnosis” of a mental impairment, including 4.2% with intellectual disabilities and 27.6% with other types of mental disorders such as schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder or severe depression.
- 29.8% have a musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorder.
- 8.7% have a cardiovascular condition such as chronic heart failure.
- 9.3% have a disorder of the nervous system, such as cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis, or a sensory impairment such as deafness or blindness.
- 20.4% include workers living with cancers; infectious diseases; injuries; genitourinary impairments such as end stage renal disease; congenital disorders; metabolic and endocrine diseases such as diabetes; diseases of the respiratory system; and diseases of other body systems
Watch the entire event with Sen. Brown and a distinguished panel of experts on Social Security and SSDI. You also can read CAP’s full report on SSDI.
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: aflcio, disability, Health Care, Ohio, secure retirement, Sherrod Brown, social security
On Feb. 8, the Moral Monday movement, which showed massive momentum in 2013, will return with its biggest event yet, the Moral March on Raleigh. While the state of North Carolina has been moving in a more Democratic direction in recent years in presidential elections, with Barack Obama winning the state in 2008 and coming just two percentage points of winning it again in 2012, extremist Republicans have taken control of the governor’s mansion and the state Assembly.
The Moral March on Raleigh will call out North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, state House Speaker Thom Tillis (R) and state Senate Leader Phil Berger (R) and their extreme policies, which have included attacks on voting rights, education, the environment, health care and women’s rights. Organizers expect tens of thousands of North Carolinians to stand up for their rights and fight back against these extreme policies on Feb. 8.
The Moral Monday movement was organized by the Rev. William Barber II, head of the North Carolina NAACP, which staged protests in Raleigh and throughout the state last year. The events were launched in conjunction with another organization headed by Barber, the Historic Thousands on Jones Street (HKonJ) People’s Assembly Coalition, and have been supported by more than 150 other organizations. The 13 Moral Monday events in Raleigh in 2013 led to nearly 1,000 arrests for civil disobedience, while events in dozens of other cities around the state helped raise awareness about the strange games afoot in the state capital.
For more details about the March, visit the HKonJ website.
The Moral Monday movement has put forth the People’s Moral Agenda, which includes the following principles and policy goals:
- Economic sustainability, alleviating poverty and expanding labor rights.
- Fully funded constitutional education.
- Health care for all—protecting Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, women’s health and the Affordable Health Care Act.
- Addressing disparities in the criminal justice system.
- Protecting/expanding voting rights and civil rights.
- Environmental justice.
- Fair and just immigration reform.
- Equal protection under the law regardless of race, income, gender or sexual orientation.
The Moral Monday movement also has a goal of raising awareness about Art Pope, the extreme financier behind much of the pro-corporate, anti-working family policies that have passed recently in North Carolina. Pope is often referred to as the state’s version of the Koch brothers.
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: Affordable Care Act, Art Pope, Health Care, Jobs, Medicaid, moral monday, North Carolina, Pat McCrory, Phil Berger, social security, Tom Tillis, voting rights, women
Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty and worked with Congress to pass legislation designed to lower poverty levels and mitigate the effects of poverty on America’s families. Not long after the war on poverty initiatives went into effect, and startedshowing significant results, conservatives went on the attack, attempting to weaken, defund or eliminate many of the policies that were working quite well. But the program was so effective that it still helped, and helps, keep tens of millions of Americans out of poverty. Now Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) isweighing in on the war on poverty by claiming that it has failed, a smoke screen that he and others are using to continue their agenda to weaken or eliminate the war on poverty.
Two claims are central to conservative arguments that the war on poverty is a failure. The first is tortured logic that goes something like this: “We’ve been fighting the war on poverty for 50 years and poverty still exists, therefore it’s a failure.” Beyond the fact that this level of oversimplification doesn’t belong in a serious conversation about poverty (we rarely “eliminate” problems, we improve the situation as the real world goal), it completely ignores the conservative responsibility for the programs not being as effective as they could be. From budget cuts to added red tape that makes it harder for citizens to participate in lifelines they are eligible for, conservatives have fought for decades to make the war on poverty less successful. To now claim that these lifelines are inherently flawed, as opposed to being sabotaged, is laughable at best.
The second claim relies on a dumbing-down of statistics that would make George W. Bush proud. By the official government poverty measure, the poverty rate in 1964 was 19%. In the latest version of that official number, the rate is 15%. The argument goes that 50 years is a long time and a lot of money to decrease poverty such a small amount. Ignoring the fact that 4% of the population is still millions of people, the official number is flawed. It only includes cash income. Over the years, more and more anti-poverty programs were moved away from direct cash payments to non-cash benefits and tax credits. So this official measure ignores many of the programs designed to keep Americans out of poverty. A more accurate measure is the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which accounts for non-cash income. The SPM shows a decline in the poverty rate more than twice that of the official number, from 26% in 1967 to 16% now.
It’s clear that by any valid measurement, the war on poverty has been highly successful, particularly when you look at specific policies and what aspects of poverty they target. Here are a few key numbers that show the success of the war on poverty:
- Antipoverty programs kept 41 million Americans out of poverty in 2012, including 9 million children.
- Unemployment Insurance kept 2.5 million Americans out of poverty in 2012.
- The Supplemental Nutrition assistance Program (food stamps) kept 4.9 million Americans out of poverty, including 2.2. million children.
- The Earned Income and Child Tax Credits kept 10.1 million Americans out of poverty.
- Social Security kept 26.6 million people out of poverty in 2012, including 17 million seniors and more than 1 million children.
- Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and health care subsidies help 150 million Americans get health insurance.
- The programs have long-term effects, too. Research shows that children who received food stamps in the 1960s and 1970s grew up healthier and were more likely to finish school. At age 19, they were 6% less likely to have stunted growth, 5% less likely to have heart disease, 16% less likely to be obese and 18% more likely to have completed high school.
This isn’t to say that the war on poverty is an unqualified success or that more doesn’t need to be done. But it is to say that conservative arguments about the war on poverty are highly inaccurate and the policy proposals put for by Rubio and his allies would do the exact opposite of what they claim and would undermine the progress that has been made in the last 50 years. More appropriate solutions to the problems of poverty would roll back right-wing assaults on antipoverty programs and would stimulate job creation and higher wages for working families. But don’t hold your breath thinking that the Marco Rubios of the world will do the right thing.
Photo by Gage Skidmore on Flickr
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: Health Care, hunger, Jobs, Marco Rubio, Medicaid, Medicare, poverty, snap, social security
We’ve heard of the looming retirement security crisis, but this statistic is extremely sobering: The majority of black and Latino workers (62% and 69%, respectively) do not own assets in a retirement account. This is from a new report by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) released this week.
To make things worse, three out of four black households and four out of five Latino households ages 25 to 64 have less than $10,000 in retirement savings, compared to one out of two white households.
“Those are startling findings,” says Diane Oakley, executive director of NIRS. “The typical household of color has nothing saved in a retirement account.”
Oakley raises the point that tax incentives meant to bolster retirement savings more often than not fail to help black and Latino workers, who on average have less money available to save for retirement.
“One of the big issues here is a gap in access,” Oakley tells The Washington Post. “We have what is essentially a voluntary retirement system and what we know is when we look at minority households, their access to retirement plans on the job is much less than that for whites.”
In another study examining how the current retirement system is failing America’s workers, Economic Policy Institute’s Monique Morrissey and Natalie Sabadish argue these gaps in retirement security make the case all the more strongly to bolster Social Security benefits, not cut them:
The trends exhibited in these figures paint a picture of increasingly inadequate savings and retirement income for successive cohorts and growing disparities by income, race, ethnicity, education and marital status. Even women, who by some measures appear to be narrowing gaps with men (in large part because men are faring worse than they did before) are ill-served by an inefficient retirement system that shifts risk onto workers, including the risk of outliving one’s retirement savings. The existence of a retirement system that does not work for most workers underscores the importance of preserving and strengthening Social Security, defending defined-benefit pensions for workers who have them and seeking solutions for those who do not.
The AFL-CIO is calling on Congress to strengthen Social Security benefits and reject any proposed cuts, whether it’s the misguided “chained” CPI, means-testing or raising the retirement age. Read more on retirement security on the AFL-CIO website.
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: aflcio, African-American, chained cpi, Latino, Medicare, Retirement Security, social security
A new report from the Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies shows that two groups of corporate CEOs pushing for cuts to Social Security benefits, such as the “chained” CPI, personally have massive retirement plans. They also have allowed massive deficits to grow in their employees’ pension funds. While these CEOs—members of the Business Roundtable and the Fix the Debt Coalition—sit on retirement funds most people couldn’t even dream of, they have hurt their own employees’ retirement security and are looking to do the same for people who don’t even work for them.
According to the report, more than 25% of Fix the Debt members are also members of the Business Roundtable, including more than half of the Business Roundtable’s executive council. Fix the Debt is made up of more than 135 CEOs and tries to paint itself as very dedicated to serving the public, with the goal of protecting Social Security. The Business Roundtable, which includes more than 200 CEOs, doesn’t even pretend that it cares about public interest.
Members of the Business Roundtable, the report shows, have retirement accounts more than 1,200 times greater than the median retirement savings of U.S. workers near retirement age. When they retire, the $14.5 million fund they average will give them monthly retirement payments of nearly $90,000. The average monthly payment for everyone else is about $70.
While many of the Business Roundtable CEOs don’t even offer their employees pension plans, those who do aren’t exactly managing those funds well. The report found that 10 of the CEOs who do offer pensions plans have funds that run deficits between $4.9 billion and $22.6 billion. CEOs like those in the Business Roundtable and Fix the Debt are major players in the country’s growing retirement security crisis:
Over the past several decades, chief executives have slashed retirement benefits for their employees. Traditional defined-benefit corporate pensions covered 38% of private-sector workers in the early 1990s, compared with just 18% today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of companies providing traditional pension plans has dropped from just over 112,000 in 1985 to 22,697 in 2013.
Read the full report.
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: aflcio, Fix the Debt, Medicare, pensions, Retirement Security, social security
Contrary to what The Washington Post and the billionaires who are trying to cut Social Security by pitting young people against seniors say, the nation does face a retirement crisis and Social Security doesn’t need to be cut. It must be—and can be—strengthened, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a powerful speech on the Senate floor Monday.
Just 18% of private-sector workers have traditional defined pension plans, and even with some employers providing 401(k) plans, she said that nearly half of workers lack access to those limited plans. More than 44 million workers have no retirement assistance from their employers.
With tens of millions of people more financially stressed as they approach retirement, with more and more people left out of the private retirement security system and with the economic security of our families unraveling, Social Security is rapidly becoming the only lifeline that millions of seniors have to keep their heads above water.
But instead of taking on the retirement crisis, instead of strengthening Social Security, Warren said, “some in Washington are actually fighting to cut benefits.”
So long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis—a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class—the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security. The absolute last thing we should do in 2013— at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors—is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.
Cutting Social Security would mean cutting benefits for the two-thirds of seniors who rely on it for the majority of their income, said Warren. It would also affect the 14 million whose Social Security benefits keep them out of poverty.
While those calling to cut Social Security hid their intentions behind the claim that their “chained” CPI proposal is just a more accurate way to calculate the cost-of-living increases for seniors, Warren said:
“Chained” CPI? It’s just a fancy way of saying cut benefits…[instead] with some modest adjustments, we can keep the system solvent for many more years—and could even increase benefits.
Warren also slammed a recent Washington Post editorial that mocked the idea of a looming retirement crisis.
No retirement crisis? Tell that to the millions of Americans who are facing retirement without a pension. Tell that to the millions of Americans who have nothing to fall back on except Social Security. There is a $6.6 trillion gap between what Americans under 65 are currently saving and what they will need to maintain their current standard of living when they hit retirement. $6.6 trillion, and that assumes Social Security benefits aren’t cut. Make no mistake: There is a crisis.
She also said the call to cut Social Security “has an uglier side.” The Post editorial and groups pushing Social Security cuts, like billionaire Peter Peterson’s “Fix the Debt” organization, are trying to drive a wedge between younger people and seniors by framing the debate as a choice between “more children in poverty versus more seniors in poverty.”
The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong. This is about our values, and our values tell us that we don’t build a future by first deciding who among our most vulnerable will be left to starve.
Warren told the senators, “We don’t build a future for our children by cutting basic retirement benefits for their grandparents,” but instead:
We build a future for our kids by strengthening our economy, by investing in education and infrastructure and research, by rebuilding a strong and robust middle class in which every kid gets a chance and the most vulnerable have a strong safety net.
See her full speech in the video above and read the full text here.
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: chained cpi, Elizabeth Warren, Fix the Debt, Medicare, pensions, Retirement Security, social security
Next year, the millions of Social Security recipients will see the smallest cost-of-living adjustment ever—just 1.5% or about $19 a month. If the politicians—and their billionaire friends who don’t want to pay the same taxes workers do—who are pressing hard for the “chained” CPI benefit cut had their way, the adjustment would be even smaller than 2014’s historic low.
Edward F. Coyle, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, says, “I hope this news about next year’s Social Security COLA will cause politicians in Washington to reconsider their support for the ‘chained’ CPI.”
How can anyone look at an increase of around 1.5% and think ‘That’s too big?’ Clearly, these politicians need to spend more time talking to seniors who are struggling. Next year’s increase will be 1.5%. Imagine if it were even less. Then imagine if that smaller increase were to be compounded over time. That is the ‘chained’ CPI.
The “chained” CPI proposal would reduce cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and prevent benefits from keeping up with inflation. At age 75, a senior’s benefits would be cut by about $650 per year (on average). At age 85, those benefits would be cut by about $1,150 per year, and at age 95, by about $1,600 per year. For more on what the “chained” CPI would do, go to the Alliance “chained” CPI fact sheet.
Earlier this month, 51 Republican members of the House, led by Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) signed a letter to Speaker John Boehner supporting COLA cuts, among other unspecified proposed Social Security benefit cuts, as part of the ransom demand to lift the debt ceiling.
On the other hand, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) have introduced the Strengthening Social Security Act (S. 567 and H.R. 3118). The legislation would measure inflation not with the “chained” CPI, but with a more accurate measure of inflation for seniors (the CPI-E). It also would improve Social Security’s solvency by lifting the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax, so that all of America’s workers pay the same rate.
AFL-CIO Policy Director and Special Counsel Damon Silvers recently told Salon that the AFL-CIO opposes any benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The labor movement is going to fight to the death to stop cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Not ‘unreasonable cuts.’ Not ‘cuts without tax increases.’ Cuts period. We’re against all of them, we will fight them ferociously, and we will give no cover to any Democrat who supports them
Reposted from AFL-CIO NOW
Tags: aflcio, Retirement, Retirement Security, secure retirement, social security
AFL-CIO’s Damon Silvers went on CNBC last week to make it clear that the labor movement won’t give political cover to any elected official, Republican or Democrat, who seeks cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.
But sometimes “cuts” hide in the form of other changes to earned benefits. Silvers gave the example of “Chained CPI,” which cuts Social Security by changing how benefits are calculated. “Chained CPI is the vampire of American politics,” Silvers told the Washington Post. “It keep being shot through the heart and it keeps reviving.”
Here’s another vampire idea that needs to die: raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67.
The argument typically goes like this: with modern medicine, people are living longer than they did when Medicare set the retirement age at 65, so why not raise the eligibility age to keep up with the times? After all, we need to save money!
This argument conveniently ignores what happens to the millions of 65 and 66 year olds who would no longer be able to access coverage through Medicare, which they have paid into throughout their entire lives.
Many of these seniors with low enough incomes will be pushed into Medicaid, shifting costs onto that other program. Some will have incomes high enough to be ineligible for Medicaid but low enough to qualify for subsidies to purchase insurance on the health exchanges on the Affordable Care Act.
But many more seniors will lose coverage altogether, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, because while their incomes make them ineligible for Medicaid or subsidies, health insurance companies will consider them to be extremely expensive. “Because exchange plans could charge the oldest workers three times as much as the youngest, unsubsidized premiums could reach $10,000 to $12,000 (in 2014 terms) for 65- and 66-year-old individuals and twice that for couples.” Even if every state implemented ACA completely, that’s about 200,000 more uninsured seniors, according to Matt Stoller of the Roosevelt Institute.
So for increased pressure on Medicaid and more seniors unable to buy coverage at all, how much money do we save? The Congressional Budget Office has updated numbers on that front: the net savings would amount to less than $3 billion a year, a paltry sum in the context of the federal budget.
Thursday, the CBO said the overall savings wouldn’t amount to as much as it had previously estimated. Instead of saving the federal government about $113 billion over a decade, CBO now figures it’s more like $19 billion over eight years starting in 2016.
Joan McCarter wants this idea to be finally laid to rest:
It will keep people working longer, and that means it will cost their employers—and everyone with private insurance—more in insurance premiums to cover this older, sicker population. The thing is, people still need health care when they’re 65. There isn’t a magic two years between 65 and 67 when everyone is healthy and doesn’t need to go to the doctor.
If we are serious about raising revenue and dealing with our fiscal health, we ought to stop looking at seniors – who have earned Social Security and Medicare by paying into it through a lifetime of paychecks – and start looking at the complex web of tax avoidance schemes of the very billionaires and large corporations that are pushing these cuts to begin with.
Tags: Medicaid, Medicare, Retirement, Retirement Security, social security