Professor of Law Merton Bernstein writes today: “Social Security has proven to be the one program we can rely on to provide income when other income sources dry up because of job loss, age, disability or death. Most people probably didn’t know or notice, but Social Security was the first program to deliver cash benefits to families who lost a wage earner in the 9/11 attack. It also is the most readily available income source to those aged 62 and over when they lose a job. It is the most readily available income source to families who lose a wage earner to death and retirement.

“Some seek to trim Social Security as part of an effort to tame federal deficits and the federal debt. But Social Security has not contributed a dime, not a nickel, not a penny to them. Social Security’s three income sources pay the program’s way in full. Since 1937, working people and their employers have paid a modest monthly amount of their earnings to the program pursuant to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).

“Since 1983, the program has derived ample support from those contributions and two other dedicated sources of revenue — income tax on the Social Security benefits of high earners and interest credited to the Social Security Trust Fund for tens of billions of dollars that Social Security lends to the Treasury. Treasury issues interest-bearing debt obligations in return.

“Some disparage those obligations as ‘worthless IOUs.’ But they are regarded as among the most dependable and valued bonds in the world. Some decry the bonds in the hand of China as a source of U.S. vulnerability. That’s absurd because, as a large creditor, China has a huge stake in maintaining our ability to pay interest on those bonds and repay their principal. Moreover, the Social Security surplus makes huge amounts readily available for Treasury borrowing and thereby lowers the cost of borrowing for business, consumers and state and local government.” See his comments here:

Share this article with

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

“Eric Kingson of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, has called the draft report “an equal opportunity disaster,” which — beyond cutting benefits for today’s seniors and persons with disabilities — “cuts Social Security benefits for virtually every American alive today and yet to be born.” See full report here:

Share this article with

From Ted Marmor in today’s Huffington Post:

What we have is a case of ideology masked as fiscal prudence. There is every reason to believe that Peter Peterson and the personnel of his foundation believe profoundly in the virtues of a smaller public sector, a robust means-tested conception of social welfare policy, and the importance of not providing most citizens with a collectively financed system of income protection against major losses in family income from recognized and understood risks. So they are advancing their cause as prudent, fiscal watchdogs.

But the distortion of this longstanding approach is evident in the concentration on Social Security rather than the most important threat to America’s fiscal future, the continuing, disproportionate rates of increase in medical care spending, both private and public. The health reform legislation of 2010 was celebrated as insurance expansion for millions of uninsured Americans, but it did not seriously take on medical inflation. There is a big problem in this policy space, but the Fiscal Commission meetings of late June 2010 are not focused there. Instead, they are locked on the one sphere of American domestic policy that has been a substantial success over its history since 1935.

It is ironic — and infuriating — to have a debate in 2010 about Social Security when that program had nothing to do with the transformation of the nation’s fiscal policy from surplus to deficit since 2000. Two wars, Bush tax cuts, and the fiscal consequences of the economic crash of 2008-9 explain the size of the deficit. Why are we even talking about reducing Social Security at this time? It is not because there is a good rationale, but because of the money behind the rationalizers of a smaller government. See full column here:

Share this article with

The Huffington Post ran an article today with Mark Miller’s reality check on the rhetoric about Social Security going broke: “… Social Security also has that big surplus, which has been accumulating since the last “fix” to the program was implemented during the Reagan years. That fix included a gradual boost of the retirement age from 65 to 67, and a substantial boost in payroll taxes that fund Social Security. Those changes were intended to raise a substantial cushion for the future retirement of all those boomers. It worked, and the money sits in something called the Social Security Trust Fund.

“True, as boomers start to retire in greater numbers, there won’t be enough current workers coming along behind them to keep the program solvent on a pay-go basis. That means the surplus funds will be drained — eventually. As in … 2037. But even then, income coming into the fund would cover about 75 percent of benefit payouts.”
See article here:

Share this article with

Today’s Huffington Post has a great article on the differences between Medicare and Medicaid – this is often a point of confusion for people applying for Social Security disability. People granted Social Security benefits are eligible for federal Medicare after the first 24 months of checks. Medicaid is a state program, sometimes called something different (e.g MediCal in California, Oregon Health Plan in Oregon) and is a need-based program. It comes with SSI benefits and also for other qualifiying events – many folks with HIV get it, for example. Read On here:

Share this article with