Category Archives for Congress

Bush will fight to Privatize Social Security

Published in Senior Digest on January 2005

The Bush administration and aging groups are about to battle over the privatization of Social Security.

More than four years ago, the 16-member Presidential Commission divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats, voted unanimously to send its 165-page final report to the Bush White House. The charge of the commission was to develop a road map to reform the nation’s Social Security program.

With the commission kicking off the Social Security reform debate by releasing this report in December 2001, the federal panel called for three approaches to change the 70-year-old federal program.  All the recommendations involved personal accounts, with a premise that workers’ investments would yield higher retirement benefits.

With President Bush keeping control of the White House and the GOP retaining control of Congress, Social Security is again under attack and the debate is expected to heat up.

According to recent Business Week On-Line article by Richard S. Dunham, Bush will begin to sell the partial privatization of Social Security by launching a “marketing blitz.”

“Advisors say the president, who sees private accounts as essential to his ownership society agenda, is determined to make retirement reform his top domestic priority for 2005,” Dunham wrote.

According to Dunham, Bush’s “three-phase sales plan” started with his Dec. 12 radio address Bush followed by calling for privatization of Social Security at his economic summit on Dec. 16.

Phase Two, a $ 40 million broadcast advertising campaign underwritten by nation’s corporations will tout the economic benefits of allowing workers to put a portion of their payroll taxes into investment accounts and the negative impact of inaction.  Dunham wrote Phase Three would give the public the specifics.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that Bush had his work cut out for him to sell the public. Results showed people are skeptical about any changes to Social Security, and that the public believes it is a bad idea to let workers risk their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

Critics are quick to pounce on Bush for his calls for radical changes to Social Security. They charge that the securities industry which heavily supported Republican candidates in the last election, would benefit financially under the president’s plan.

“Wall Street and big business are seated at the conference table-where are the voices of seniors?” asked Barbara Kennelly, president and chief executive officer of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“This seems like a repeal of the president’s Social  Security Commission, where privatization wasn’t debated. It was a foregone conclusion – and that is a sure path to bad public policy,” she said in a prepared statement released after the White Houe Economic Conference.

Furthermore, Kennelly said that “a carefully orchestrated conference can’t hide the fact that privatizing Social Security may result in cuts in benefits and will dismantle Social Security, while dramatically increasing our nation’s debt.”

Just blocks away at the National Press Club, a diverse coalition of groups held a press conference on the day of Bush’s economic summit. The assembled groups, including the AFL-CIO, NAACP, National Organization for Women (NOW), disability groups, and the Alliance for Retired Americans, announced their strong opposition to Bush plan.

Those groups are part of the Campaign for America’s Future, which intends to mobilize opposition in every congressional district throughout the nation to Save Social Security benefits that would be slashed by the president’s plan.

At the news conference, George J. Kourpias, president of the 3 million plus member Alliance for Retired Americans,” told the crowd that the Social Security system is not broke or in the dire trouble Bush would have American’s believe.

“Let me remind those naysayers who conspired not to save Social Security but to bury it, that Social Security hasn’t missed a paycheck in almost 70  years, Kourpias said.

“With some changes designed to strengthen and secure the program, Social Security is well positioned to keep delivering monthly checks to millions of Americans for decades to come.”

Adds, NOW President Kim Gandy, “Social Security is not in trouble. George Bush is in trouble. More than half of elderly women would live in poverty without the benefits of this guaranteed insurance program. This destructive proposal is effectively economic violence against women- he’s risking our livelihoods to satisfy Wall Street donors and corporate cronies.

AARP President Marie Smith is also weighing in on the privatization issue by placing an open letter to 33 million plus members, on the nonprofit group’s Web site

Smith counters Bush’s statements that Social Security is in danger of going broke. Changes do not have to be drastic, she says. “Creating private accounts would only weaken Social Security and put benefits at risk for future generations.”

Smith estates that a new Social Security system would cost the nation as much as $2 trillion or more in benefit cuts new taxes or more debt.

In Rhode Island, a quick poll of the state’s Democratic U.S. senators and congressmen indicate that they oppose Bush’s retirement policy gamble. (Republican U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee’s position could not be obtained). While each oppose the concept of privatization, the lawmakers are waiting to see the specific legislative proposals that will be introduced.

But even with Bush pushing for a major Social Security overhaul, only a bipartisan coalition of congressional lawmakers can either strengthen the existing Social Security program or scrap it through privatization.

It is crucial for seniors to send a message to Bush and the Republican congressional leadership that it’s time to go back to the drawing board to examine other approaches to strengthen America’s most popular domestic program.

Congress is Close to Passing Prescription Drug Legislation

Published in Pawtucket Times on June 23, 2003

Within days of the July 4th congressional recess, the House and Senate continue their debates on enacting legislation to lower the cost of pharmaceuticals for the nation’s elderly.

The AARP will kick off a media blitz to get a point across to lawmakers that while they may take a short break during recess, the nation’s elderly don’t get a break when it comes to affording the costly medications they need.

“There’s no recess [for seniors] from high prescription drug costs,”  AARP declares in a press release sent to the nation’s media outlets.

In a written statement, Lt. Gov. Charles J. Fogarty, who chairs the state’s Long-Term Care Coordinating Council, calls on Rhode Island’s congressional delegation to pass meaningful Medicare drug benefits, rather than the legislative proposals being debated in the House and Senate chambers.

“While it is nice that after many years of promises Congress has finally taken on this issue these proposals will cause nothing but heartburn and headaches for seniors if passed,” said Fogarty, noting that many seniors will pay more for the program than they will get back in benefits. He charged that others will even be left without prescription drug coverage when they need it the most.

Under the Senate proposal, seniors would pay a $ 35 monthly premium and then have to meet a $275 deductible before Medicare starts to kick in to pay for half of the drugs costs.  Once senior’s reach a cost cap of $ 4,500 for the last year, they would then have to pick up the entire cost until they reach yet another cap of $ 5,800 in total drug spending. At this point, Medicare would then pay 90 percent of the covered drug costs.

Fogarty noted the Congressional Budget Office found that one-third of seniors would pay more money to enroll in the plan than they would actually get back in benefits.

That’s because a senior with $ 1,000 in annual drug costs would actually end up

$ 1,057 annual for the benefits ($420 in premiums, a $ 275 deductible and half of the drug costs).  A senior with $ 2,000 in drug costs would pay $ 1,557 out-of-pocket for the benefits.

Fogarty also called attention to the major gap in coverage for those whose costs exceed the $ 4,500 limit until they reach that $ 5,800 mark.

Furthermore, Fogarty, who authored the state’s expanded prescription drug program, said a study by Columbia University found that only those annual drug costs about $ 1,100 would benefit through the plan.  

In the House chamber, the Republican proposal also calls for monthly premiums of $ 35 along with a lower annual deductible of $ 250 with Medicaid paying 80 percent of the cost of drugs up to $ 2,000.

There is a gaping hole in coverage (in this legislative package).” Fogarty warned “Seniors would then have to spend at least another $ 1,500 depending on their income, on medications before coverage would again begin.”

According to Fogarty, Consumer Union, the publisher of the widely-read magazine, Consumer Reports, noted the “skimpy benefits [in the House and Senate proposal] and the historically high growth of prescription drug costs means that most who lack coverage today would wind up paying more for prescription drugs in four years than they do now.”

Will seniors see a prescription drug proposal enacted this year?

Probably, said Jason Ormsby, director of policy at the Washington, D.C.-based Allilance for Health Reform.

“There is a tremendous drive that I have not seen in the last there years [to enact a prescription drug bill],” said Ormsby.

He noted the House passed a legislative proposal to assist seniors in paying for costly pharmaceuticals, but it died in the Senate.

“The somewhat similar House and Senate bills will have a good change to pass by the July 4th recess,” Ormsby predicted.  Once passed, the legislative proposal will go to conference committee to iron out the differences between the 600-page House and 350-pshr Senate bills,” he said.

The prescription drug benefits are just a small portion of these massive legislative proposals, he noted.

Robert Greenwood, vice-president of public affairs for the National Pace Association, added: “Many Democrats see the limitation of these bills.  This legislation passed presents a historic opportunity to get this law on the book so it can be amended and improved in future years.”

While not a meaningful drug prescription proposal, it’s the first step in the right direction.

Once enacted into law, the Rhode Island congressional delegation must begin their efforts to improve the law – improve access for all: make out-of-pocket costs and cost sharing affordable; lessen gaps in coverage; more important, put the breaks to the steady increase in high-cost drugs.

Bush’s “just guns, no butter” policy hurts senior programs

Published in the Pawtucket Times on March 31, 2003

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Guns and Butter” policy is not in fashion today.

In a recent Washington Aging Report, radio commentator Bill Benson predicted future federal funding of program and services for seniors will take a back seat to President Bush’s worldwide fight against tourism, the high-tech war against Iraq and tax breaks for the upper income Americans.

In his Marh 24 commentary, Benson, a former assistant secretary with the U.S. Administration on Aging and now a principal at Health Benefits ABC – sees tough times ahead for the federal funding of programs and services, especially the creation of a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program.

“Guns and Butter” was coined nearly 40 years ago, describing President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two-front war. Back then, a large infusion of federal dollars allowed the Democratic president to fight a war abroad – in Vietnam – along with a war on the domestic front, against poverty and social ills, especially those facing the elderly.

“By the end of 1965, with Vietnam escalating, we had the Medicare program and the Older Americans Act,” noted Benson, adding Medicaid was also created at this time to help millions of low-income older people afford the cost of nursing home care.

Benson’s radio commentary charged the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress are fully committed to funding the “guns” but not “butter” policy initiatives.

“It would be one thing if the commitment to guns over butter was for the president while we topple Saddam and occupy Iraq, and combat terrorism everywhere. “Instead, it looks like the Bush administration is committed to making butter a scarcer commodity for years to come,” said Benson.

According to Benson’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year suggests it won’t be both “guns and butter,” especially in light of the president’s efforts to pursue large tax cuts for upper-income Americans.

What about the spending for guns?

According to the Washington Post, Bush’s proposal for the fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, calls for defense spending that is 16 percent more than the combined total of all other discretionary spending excluding what he would spend on homeland security.

And that figure does not take into account the cost of the war in Iraq, nor expenditures to combat terrorism, Benson says.

Meanwhile, Benson said the Washington Post noted secretary of defense Donald Rumford has proposed a $20 billion increase for defense for each of the next six years, would follow what have been six straight years of real increases in defense spending. The result by 2010 would be annual spending for defense of more than half a trillion dollars.

Combine increased defense with the cost of the Iraq war.

Benson noted the White House estimated the cost for Iraq and related matters will be nearly $75 billion over the next six months.

Benson said that by 2011, the first baby boomer s will turn age 65, and will begin placing huge demands up on Medicare, Social Security and other services for the elderly.

“President Bush’s FY 2004 budget calls for $ 400 billion spread over 10 years for a prescription drug plan for senior,” said Benson.

On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare beneficiaries will in fact spend more than $1.8 trillion over the same 10 years for prescription drugs.

That means, said Benson, the president’s plan would cover only a bit more than 20 percent of wat seniors will actually spend. And that is if the $ 400 billion actually goes for drug coverage when there will be many other demands for additional Medicare dollars.

Bush also purposes to cut funding for the Older Americans Act – a federal program that supports such services as Meals on Wheels, transportation for the elderly and ombudsmen to investigate problems in nursing homes -by $24 billion, Benson said.

With a worldwide war on  terrorism combined with the ongoing war in Iraq, the debate regarding “guns and butter” spending must begin in earnest.

Hard choices must be made in times of war, but seniors must continue to press both the Bush administration and Congress for adequate federal funding to create a meaningful Medicare pharmaceutical assistance program, and to shore up the ailing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

In this new era of huge defense spending, the Bush administration and Congress will have to make very painful choices in allocating its limited discretionary funds to support a wide variety of domestic policy initiatives.

Only an intense lobby of aging advocates and seniors will keep programs and services benefiting the nation’s elderly on the radar screens of federal officials and lawmakers.