Author Archives for Herb Weiss

Obama’s Budget DOA, Thanks to GOP Gridlock

Published in the Woonsocket Call on February 14, 2016

With a GOP-controlled Congress President Obama’s final budget arrives “dead on arrival” on Capitol Hill.  The 182-page 2017 Fiscal Year budget, submitted on February 9, detailing $4.1 trillion in federal spending, which starts October 1, seems to be not worth the paper it’s written on.

Obama, a “lame duck” president in his last term, will not get his day in court.  Since the 1970s, a long-standing political tradition has brought the Office of Management and Budget Director and other senior administration officials, to present the president’s entire budget to Congress.  However, the Chairs of the House and Senate budget committees snubbed the Democratic President by issuing a joint statement saying, there will be no hearings before their panels this year. Sadly, political gridlock, fostered GOP Senate and House leadership, still seems to be alive and well on Capitol Hill.

Crafting the budget proposal now is in the hands of a very conservative Congress. But there a positives in Obama’s budget proposal, provisions that hopefully be placed in an enacted budget.

Obama’s budget proposal makes critical investments to fund domestic and national security priorities while adhering to the bipartisan budget agreement signed into law last fall.  It lifts sequestration in future years.  The budget proposal also attempts to drive down the federal deficit through smart savings from health care, immigration, and tax the wealthy and banks.

The Budget also seeks to tackle a multitude of domestic issues including confronting climate change, finding new clinical treatments for attacking cancer, advancing biomedical research, fighting infectious diseases, protecting the nation’s water supply and fostering clean energy initiatives, ratcheting up military readiness, revitalizing the American manufacturing sector, and funding job training and education initiatives.

Obama’s Final Budget and Seniors

But Obama’s 2017 Fiscal Year Budget has a number of budget provisions that directly impact older Americans, too.

According to  President and CEO Max Richtman, of the Washington, D.C.-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, like last year’s Obama recently released budget proposal proposes no changes in the way Social Security benefits are determined which is “good news for seniors.”

Richtman says that his aging organization worked tirelessly to make sure the FY 2017 budget did not include any Social Security proposals that would negatively impact benefits for current or future beneficiaries.  He notes, “The new budget proposes a substantial increase in the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) budget — $13.067 billion for SSA’s FY 2017 appropriation for administrative funding.  This is a $905 million, or 7.44 percent, increase over the FY 2016 enacted level.”

Finally, Obama’s newly released budget helps SSA to improve customer service for those applying for SSA and/or disability benefits by hiring additional front-line employees for its teleservice centers and local offices as well as additional staff to reduce the backlog of disability applications that have accumulated in SSA’s hearing offices, he says.

NCPSSM also applauded the President’s budget proposal for allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices.

Richtman observed it has taken Congress a long time to acknowledge that the high cost of prescription drugs has hit older American’s hard in their wallets.  “Medicare spends billions providing Part D drug coverage each year while beneficiaries including seniors, the disabled and their families also face rising out-of-pocket costs and higher premiums, he says, noting that “All the while, drug makers continue to reap the profits of their price gouging.”

In his budget proposal Obama has again proposed lifting the ban preventing Medicare from negotiating prices with the drug companies, notes Richtman, warning that “Big Pharma has lobbied hard to keep the ban in place but seniors expect, this time, Congress will do the right thing and finally allow Medicare to negotiate for fair prices.”

Richtman says there are other budget provisions that benefit the nation’s seniors.  Specifically, the closing the Part D donut hole two years earlier, additional funding for in-home services, and reforms for overpayments going to private insurers in Medicare Advantage.

Meanwhile, the President’s budget was not all good news, adds Richtman, noting that “Once again, the budget proposes shifting even more healthcare costs to seniors by extending Medicare means-testing to the middle class and increasing out-of-pocket costs such as the home health care copayment and the Part B deductible.”

The President’s new funding request also targets vulnerable older Americans, by increasing funding from the 2016 Fiscal year Budget.  The President has increased last year’s budget by more than $10 million in discretionary resources for supportive services, also increasing the Congregate and Home-Delivered Nutrition Programs (like Meals on Wheels) by $14 million.  The Aging and Disability Resource Centers is also given a $2 million increase.

Other programs benefit from Obama’s budget proposal, too.  Elder Justice Initiative and Lifespan Respite Care Programs each would receive $2 increases from last year.  The Commodity Supplemental Food Program would get $14 million more.   The budget proposal also puts $10 million in for a new initiative to improve senior access to the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program.  Section 202 Housing for the Elderly also gives a bump from last year in the tune of $72 million.

But the budget request slashes funding for programs that serve low-income seniors, specifically the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Programs and the Community Development Block Grant takes huge fiscal hits.

Views from the Side Line 

             Obama’s budget proposal preserves programs for seniors, funding Social Security and Medicare, says Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, “Not many Republicans are taking this budget very seriously as they plan to write their own budget. The GOP alternative likely is going to include changes to programs affecting senior citizens, he warns.

Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation weighs in on the looming heated partisan budget debate where law makers will be toeing the part line.

Congressman David Cicilline, notes that he is disappointed that the House Budget Committee will not ‎holding hearings on President Obama’s budget proposal. “We should be discussing ways to strengthen Social Security, preserve Medicare, and ensure retirement security for every American. Unfortunately, it’s clear that House Republicans don’t want to have this discussion,” he says.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse weighed in on the brewing pre-election budget battle.  “I’m pleased to see that the President’s budget protects Social Security and Medicare from the cuts sought by many Republicans.  As the President has proposed, we should reduce the deficit by closing wasteful tax loopholes, not by compromising the programs essential to our seniors, and not after saving Rhode Island seniors $14.4 million in prescription costs thanks to the Affordable Care Act.”

Finally, U.S. Senator Jack Reed notes that the President’s budget proposal reflects a number of his ongoing efforts to support Rhode Island seniors.  “This budget blueprint proposes significant investments in the health and well-being of aging Americans, and I will work hard to champion these proposals as we work through the appropriations process this year, he says.

“I am particularly glad the President heeded my call to propose meaningful steps towards lowering the cost of prescription drugs, which is critical for middle class families,” adds the Senator.

Now the work begins as Congress starts to craft it’s 2017 Fiscal Year Budget.  Democratic Congressional lawmakers can glean and fight for provisions in Obama’s eighth and final budget that positively benefit older Americans. With Senator Reed, sitting on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Rhode Island’s Senior Senator and the state’s Congressional Delegation will play a major role in shaping the nation’s future aging programs and services.

 

Candidates Mum on Social Security

Published in Pawtucket Times on February 8, 2016

Just a week before the New Hampshire primary, scheduled for Tuesday, February 9, AARP releases a new survey, of likely primary voters, that finds Social Security is “one issue that transcends the partisan divide and unites people of all ages.” Both surveyed Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that all presidential candidates should give details as to how they will strengthen or expand Social Security.

In recent presidential debates, moderators focus on the economy, abortion, gun control, immigration and defense, hardly touching on aging issues. The January 29 AARP survey found that voters want more specifics about Social Security. More than nine in 10 New Hampshire primary voters across party lines and age groups say it is important for presidential candidates to lay out their specific plans to make Social Security financially sound for future generations.

Presidential Candidates Dodging Social Security Issue

“New Hampshire primary voters are sending a clear message to the presidential candidates that having a plan to keep Social Security strong is a test of leadership,” said AARP New Hampshire State Director Todd Fahey. “Yet, some presidential candidates are dodging the issue. Our survey confirms New Hampshire primary voters agree if a candidate thinks they’re ready to be president, they should at least be able to tell voters where they stand on Social Security’s future.”

According to AARP, the recent survey of 1,004 likely New Hampshire primary voters, was conducted by telephone from January 12 through January 16, 2016. By design, half of the respondents consist of likely Democratic primary voters (501) and half consist of likely Republican primary voters (503).

The AARP survey is part of nonprofit’s 2016 presidential election issue campaign, “Take A Stand.” In November, the nonprofit launched its its 2016 election accountability campaign initiative which demands on behalf of America’s voters that presidential candidates detail their specific positions on making Social Security financially sound.
The survey findings indicate that nine in 10 New Hampshire primary voters (93 percent Democrat and 92 percent Republican) across party lines and age groups say its important for presidential candidates to lay out a detailed plan to make Social Security financially sound for future generations. Regardless of age, nearly half or more of likely primary voters in each party think this is “very important.”

Also, more than three in four New Hampshire primary voters, across party lines and across age groups, agree that having a plan for Social Security is a basic threshold for presidential leadership. This includes 89 percent of likely Democratic primary voters and 80 percent of likely Republican primary voters.

Moreover, nearly nine in ten or more voters across both parties and age groups believe it is important that the next president and congress take action to make Social Security financially sound. This includes 96 percent of Democratic primary voters as well as 92 percent of Republican primary voters.

“If our leaders don’t act, future generations could see their Social Security benefits cut by 25 percent. That’s a $4,000 to $10,000 per year benefit cut! This survey confirms how critical it is for the next president to have a plan to update Social Security and a commitment to act on that plan,” said Fahey.

On the question of which presidential candidate they expect to vote for on February 9, the AARP survey found that among likely Republican primary voters, Donald Trump is the leading choice for president (preferred by 32 percent) with Marco Rubio preferred by 14 percent and John Kasich preferred by 13 percent However, more than one in four (26 percent) are less certain who will get their vote.

Among likely Democratic primary voters, Bernie Sanders is the leading choice for president (preferred by 59 percent), with Hillary Clinton coming in second (preferred by 33 percent. But one in five (21 percent are less certain who will get their vote.

“AARP said early on in the election cycle that Social Security is too critical a matter – and one affecting far too many people – to allow it to be skimmed over, breezed by, or paid only lip service,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “The presidential candidates need to take a stand on how they would update Social Security to keep it financially strong and adequate for future generations,” she says.

“Unfortunately, Social Security does not seem to be top-of-mind for candidates nor a discussion that finds its way into the debates,” says Connell, observing that some candidates, including some frontrunners, remain silent on the Social Security issue.
(You can get the very latest news and read what candidates with plans did say at http://www.2016takeastand.org.)

Connell says, “The challenge itself – keeping Social Security strong for the future – gets talked about a lot. You can be sure that when a candidate or elected federal official visits a senior center there will be a pledge (one I happen to believe has been sincere in Rhode Island) to protect Social Security.”

“You don’t hear so much about how. The devil is in the details. And, as the saying goes, ‘It’s complicated,’” adds Connell.

Older Voters Have Political Clout

From inside the Beltway, Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, considers voters age 50 and over are one of the most important voting blocs in the nation. “It is a numerous group and these people vote in higher percentages than those who are younger. They often are decisive in elections and candidates have to take their views seriously,” says West.

Connell agrees about the clout of older voters. “The average age for a Rhode Island voter in the 2012 presidential election was 48.6, and that was up from 48.5 in 2010. We know that older Rhode Islanders vote in high percentages and we know that the 50+ population is grown as people live longer. But I have to say that when it comes to Social Security, voters 50 and older are united on the issue; they expect some form of accountability from the candidates on how they would lead on this issue, she says.

Anyone who thinks they’re ready to be President of the United States should be able to tell voters how they’ll keep Social Security strong,” adds Connell. “If our leaders don’t act, future retirees could lose up to $10,000 a year. Every year our leaders wait and do nothing, finding a solution grows more difficult,” she says.

Aging issues impact everyone, says Connell. “When I am asked about ‘aging issues it seems to me to indicate how people often default to a narrow view of ageing. Access to and the cost of healthcare is an issue for all ages. Taxation is an issue for all ages. Affordable housing is an issue for all ages. Protecting pensions is an issue for all ages, even for voters working in their 30s or 40s – as is the issue of Social Security. Our aging population presents a challenge to all Americans and I think you will see 50+ voters becoming increasingly liked-minded making more and more of an effort to be heard.”

Retirement Survey Bleak for Ocean State

Published in Pawtucket Times on February 1, 2016

Here we go again. This month, America’s tiniest state gets outed as being the most unfavorable state to live out your retirement years. According to a new WalletHub study, “2016’s Best & Worse States to Retire,” when compared to all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, Rhode Island came in dead last when compared against 24 metrics falling in one of these three categories (Affordability, Quality of Life and Health Care).

WalletHub, an internet site that calls itself “a personal finance Web site, taps Florida as being the top state to live your retirement years, followed by Wyoming, South Dakota, South Carolina and Colorado. The in-depth analysis, geared to identifying the most retirement-friendly states, gives the Ocean States the distinct of being the worst place to live in your later years, followed by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Connecticut and Vermont.

As to affordability, WalletHub looked at the adjusted cost of living, tax friendliness of a state, it’s taxation on pensions and Social Security income, and annual cost of in-home services. Rhode Island was ranked 51 (the worst) in affordability for retirees. In zeroing in on this specific variable, the state came in 41st in adjusted cost of living; 45th in annual cost of in-home services and 48th in taxpayer rankings.

For a state’s quality of life, WallettHub zeroed in on an array of variables including the number of theatres, museums, music venues, golf courses. The researchers also checked out crime rates, weather, the number people age 65 and older and whether the state’s labor is elderly friendly. A sampling of Rhode Island specific rankings for this variable include a ranking of 35th for Museums per Capita; 42nd for Theaters per Capita; and 48th for the number of golf courses per Capita; and 32nd in having employed residents age 65 and over.

As for health care, the study examined the number of family physicians, dentists, nurses, and health-care facilities per 100,000 residents, the ranking of the state’s public hospitals, the resident’s life expectancy and emotional health, even taking a look at the death rate for people age 65 and older. Rhode Island ranks 49th in number of family physicians per 100,000 Residents.

WallettHub analyst, Jill Gonzalez, says that for Rhode Island to become a mecca for retirees, state lawmakers must reconsider how they tax Social Security and pensions. The state’s current tax policy “is not at “all friendly toward retirees,” she adds.

According to Gonzalez, the state’s cost of living index is also high at 122 while the national index is 100. This means that if the cost of goods and services nationwide is $100, the Rhode Island retirees will pay $122. Annual costs to pay for home care are nearly $54,000 per year in Rhode Island and state policy makers must find a way to reduce this key community-based service.
Statewide Reactions to Web site Survey

These surveys aggregate data that does not encourage retirement here,” observes AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “They do not fully measure quality of life or how the proximity to Boston and New York City make Rhode Island attractive to many retirees. But you often hear people talk about retiring in states where lower taxes and deflated housings prices suggest that retirement income will go dramatically farther.

“The tax issue is a reality driven by the state’s so-called ‘structural deficits’ that have resulted in cities and towns raising property and excise taxes. Meanwhile, hikes in fees and new surcharges have added to the tax burden. Legislative leaders face a great challenge in reversing this trend.

“Many people in their 40s and 50s who want to retire in Rhode Island can save more wisely for retirement and find a way to make it work. Anyone entering retirement now with little savings and expecting to rely primarily on Social Security is faced with difficult decisions.

“So, clearly the survey means different things to different people. Few would disagree that Rhode Island is a great place to retire – maybe one of the best places in the nation. If you can afford it.”

Edward Mazze, Distinguished University Professor of Business Administration, says, “I cannot disagree with the quantitative findings in the study. Behind the numbers are two critical factors that have an impact on retiring in Rhode Island – first, the Rhode Island economy has barely grown in the last eight years – second, the negative reputation of the state with government leaders going to jail, high property taxes, poor school systems and unfunded public pension and health programs.”

Mazze calls on the Rhode Island General Assembly to raise the state estate tax level to the same level as the federal estate tax level and exempt social security benefits from state taxes no matter what the income level. “The legislature has to reduce sales taxes and fees, be more transparent in its operations so that individuals trust government actions and fund the social services that retirees need,” he says.

But even with these negative findings retirees should Rhode Island as place to live because of its strategic location, transportation facilities and cultural and recreational activities. However, he acknowledges that “with the high cost of living in Rhode Island and fewer part-time job opportunities for retirees it is difficult to promote the state as a place to retire.”

Ernie Almonte, Rhode Island’s former auditor and partner at RSM US, LLP, a company that performs audit, tax and consulting services, says the changes in how the state taxes Social Security made by lawmakers last year was a good first step. But the former candidate for State Treasurer urges Governor Gina Raimondo and House and Senate Leadership to take a look at the state’s estate tax in the upcoming session. “I believe last year’s changes made by lawmakers was a move in the right direction but we cannot forget the legislative change to the estate cliff effect. “This certainly is a deciding factor for retirees looking to a place to settle down in their retirement years,” he adds.

Almonte also encourages state lawmakers to sit down with the Rhode Island Society of CPA’s to discuss tax policy. “Having a robust discussion on the role of tax policy to pay for necessary services and investments balanced by the ability to pay and the need to pay would be quite helpful to the long run,” he says.
House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello sees the business climate and economic outlook improving as he works to make the state’s tax structure more competitive with neighboring states. He says that the WallettHub survey did not take into account the repeal of state income tax for most Social Security recipients. The State offers retirees “a great quality of life with easy access to our beaches and we have excellent cultural attractions, restaurants, hospitals and universities, he says.

As she has said over her first year, Governor Gina Raimondo is “laser focused” on improving the quality of life for all Rhode Islanders, says deputy press secretary Katie O’Hanlon. “We’ve made a lot of progress over the past year, including eliminating state taxes on Social Security benefits for low and middle-income seniors and increasing funding for Meals on Wheels. However, we can always find ways to improve, says O’Hanlon.

It’s time for the Rhode Island General Assembly to get serious with enacting legislative proposals to attract retirees, more important to keep them from leaving for other retirement havens. Why not do a thorough review of tax policies of WalletHub’s best five places to retire and seek out best tax practices of other states? In the upcoming legislative session, Governor Raimondo and House and Senate leadership might consider reaching out to AARP Rhode Island and aging groups, along with the Rhode Island Society of CPAs, to organize a tax summit, seeking creative ways to tweak the state’s tax code to retain and attract retirees.

This WebHub study can be found at  http://www.wallethub.com/edu/best-and-worst-states-to-retire/18592/.