Tag Archives for Alex Lawson

Countdown to 2024 elections heating up about what to do about Social Security

Published in RINewsToday on November 27, 2023

The political clock is ticking. It’s 340 days before the upcoming presidential elections and control of Congress and the White House are up for grabs.  As education, abortion, foreign policy, immigration, crime are emerging as upcoming campaign issues, fixing Social Security and Medicare are also on the voter’s radar screens, too.  

As the Democrats call for expanding and shoring up the existing Social Security Program (by introducing H.R. 4583, Social Security 2100 Act and S. 393, Social Security Expansion Act and other legislative proposals), Republicans are calling for changes in the program including looking at raising the eligibility age for full-time retirement, possible means-testing, and adjusting benefits for higher income earners.

The Nov. 9th Republican debate was not reassuring for younger taxpayers who are counting on collecting the Social Security benefits they earn with every paycheck, says Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. Two of the GOP presidential hopefuls promised, in effect, to cut Social Security for future beneficiaries,” he said. 

However, former President Donald J. Trump, who didn’t participate in this debate, has warned the other candidates not to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits. While he opposes raising payroll taxes to ensure the fiscal solvency of these programs, he doesn’t provide specific proposals as how to do this. 

Presidential GOP candidates call for fixes to an unsustainable Social Security system 

According to Richtman, Nikki Haley claimed that Social Security is going “bankrupt,” and she would raise the retirement age for workers who are now in their 20s, and also means-test benefits. Chris Christie also said he would raise the retirement age and eliminate benefits for higher earners, essentially converting Social Security into a safety net program, instead of an earned benefit. 

“Governor Christie and Ambassador Haley fail to recognize that future generations of retirees will rely on their Social Security benefits even more than today’s seniors do — and that means testing would cut deep into the heart of the American middle class,” says Richtman.  “Ron DeSantis — to his credit — promised not to cut Social Security, but demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the program’s finances by perpetuating the myth that the government is ‘stealing’ from the trust fund,” he added.

On Oct. 25, the newly sworn in Republican House Speaker, Mike Johnson (R-LA) sent a message to his caucus calling for Social Security and Medicare reforms to be made by a debt commission to tackle changes being targeted for these programs. Richtman warns that this approach is “designed to give Congress political cover for cutting Americans’ earned benefits.”  In response, the Biden Administration described such a commission as a “death panel” for Social Security.

Over six years ago, Congressman Johnson (now newly elected House Speaker) called for cuts to Social Security. According to Independent News Network, Meidas Touch Network, in a 2018 speech before the American Enterprise Institute, as incoming chair of the Republican Study Committee, he called for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  He viewed these programs as “essential threats” to the American way of life, even suggesting that the government might cease to exist if they continued to be fully funded the way they are now. 

Slashing SSA benefits through a Debt Reform Commission

“That is why these commissions have been rightly described as ‘death panels’ for Social Security and Medicare. It is unfortunate and disappointing that one of the Speaker’s first priorities is creating a mechanism intended to slash programs that American workers pay for in every paycheck, fully expecting the benefits to be there when they need them,” says Richtman, charging that the House Speaker “clearly wishes to break this compact with the American people.”

“Congress should address Social Security in the sunlight, through regular order, as it always has,” said Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, and former top assistant to Alan Greenspan on the 1983 commission. “The only reason to create a fast-track, closed door commission is to overthrow the will of the American people by cutting their hard-earned benefits. Anyone who supports this commission is supporting benefit cuts.”

In a Nov. 13 correspondence to Congress, Jo Ann C. Jenkins of the Washington, DC-based AARP, also opposes the creation of s debt commission.  She strongly disputes the GOP’s claim that Social Security is a driver of the annual deficits or national debt, stressing that the program is self-financed.

According to Jenkins, 90% of the retirement program is financed through payroll contributions from workers and their employers.  Around 4% of its funding comes from federal income taxes on some Social Security benefits and 5.4% comes from interest earned on U.S. Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Funds.

“Any argument that claims that Social Security is a driver of the national debt – simply because it receives interest from the U.S. Treasury bonds- is disingenuous,” says Jenkins, noting that U.S. Treasury bonds are of the world’s safest investments.

Alex Lawson, Executive Director of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works, agrees with Richtman’s assessment of House Speaker Johnson’s ongoing approach to Social Security and Medicare. “The Louisiana Congressman recently joined the vast majority of his caucus to vote for a commission designed to fast-track cuts to Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors”, notes Lawson. 

“As Chair of the Republican Study Committee from 2019-2021, Johnson released budgets that included $2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and $750 billion in cuts to Social Security,” says Lawson. This includes raising the retirement age, decimating middle class benefits, making annual cost-of-living increases smaller and ultimately moving towards privation of Social Security and Medicare,” he notes.  

With Johnson pushing for the creation of a debt commission, over 100 organizations have become co-signers on Nov. 8 correspondence to Congress opposing the legislative proposal.   

Aging groups begin to mobilize

While the Social Security Trust Fund Report, released in April 2023, warned that Social Security funds will become depleted in 2033, making the program totally insolvent in 2034 when beneficiaries could only receive about 80 percent of their scheduled benefits, the cosigners say the program’s projected short falls are “manageable by size and still a decade away, are fully understood.” 

“In this Congress alone, several legislative proposals that do just that have been introduced with numerous cosponsors. The only reason to make changes to Social Security via a closed-door commission is to cut already modest earned benefits — something the American people overwhelmingly oppose  — while avoiding political accountability, say the co-signers. 

“Congress already has a process to confront the federal debt. That process is known as reconciliation. Revealingly, Social Security cuts are excluded from the reconciliation procedure, because, as previously stated, the program is totally self-funded, cannot pay benefits or associated costs without the revenue to cover the costs, has no borrowing authority, and, therefore, does not add a penny to the deficit. Consequently, if a debt commission with jurisdiction over Social Security were to be formed, its purpose would be clear: to cut its modest benefits, while avoiding political accountability,” warn the cosponsors.

But the shortfall is real

In an article in Money magazine, the writer notes, “Taxpayer funds cover the bulk of Social Security payments, but if the program’s reserves run dry, beneficiaries would face immediate 20% cuts to their checks come 2034. Any decrease to Social Security payments would likely be extremely unpopular, considering they’re a major source of retirement income for tens of millions of people.” According to a new report from the ​​American Academy of Actuaries, the longer the issue is put off, the harder it will be to address the looming shortfall.

The Third Rail of national politics 

According to AARP research, “85% of older Americans, regardless of party, strongly oppose targeting Social Security and Medicare to reduce federal budget deficits. Specifically, the survey found that 88 percent of Republicans, 79 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats strongly oppose cutting Social Security. Similarly, 86 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of independents, and 88 percent of Democrats said they strongly oppose cutting Medicare.”

Washington insiders consider Social Security to be the “third rail of a nation’s politics”, a metaphor coming from the high-voltage third rail in some electric railway systems. Stepping on it usually results in electrocution and the use of the term in the political arena refers to “political death”.

Next November, can the GOP politically survive stepping on the third rail by targeting the nation’s most popular social welfare programs (Social Security and Medicare) for adjustments to reduce the federal budget deficit? When the dust settles after November, 2024 elections, we’ll see if younger voters, who have the most to economically lose, view Social Security and Medicare as a key issue influencing their vote and “untouchable.”

We’ll see. 

Medicare to negotiate select drug prices with Big Pharma, lists first 10 drugs

Published in RINewsToday on September 4, 2023

While critics are attempting to go through the courts to put the brakes on allowing Medicare to negotiate and set drug prices, last week, the Biden administration announced its list of 10 drugs that will be subject to price negotiations mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).  

Earlier this month, more than 70 groups and a petition signed by 150,000 individuals called on Merck & Co., Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma US, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to drop their lawsuits to block the drug price negotiation provisions from taking place, and several organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the Biden administration’s historic law. 

With President Biden signing the IRA into law in Aug. 2022, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began hammering out the regulations by issuing on March 15, 2023 its initial guidance for its Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. At that time, CMS had received over 7,500 comments on its initial guidance from consumer and patient groups, drug companies and pharmacies.  On June 30, 2023, the federal agency released its revised guidance detailing the requirements and parameters for the program. With the publishing of the listing of 10 drugs on August 29, 2023, for the first time, Medicare is now able to move forward in negotiating prices directly with drug companies, with the goal of lowering prices on some of the costliest prescription drugs. 

According to CMS, the selected 10 drugs accounted for $50.5 billion in total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs, or about 20%, of total Part D gross covered prescription drug costs between June 1, 2022, and May 31, 2023, which is the time period used to determine which drugs were eligible for negotiation. The negotiations with participating drug companies begin now until 2024, and any negotiated prices will become effective beginning in 2026. Medicare beneficiaries taking the 10 drugs covered under Part D selected for negotiation paid a total of $3.4 billion in out-of-pocket costs in 2022 for these drugs.

It’s a Long Wait…Lower Prices to Take Effect Jan. 2026

CMS will publish any agreed-upon negotiated prices for the selected drugs by September 1, 2024; those prices will come into effect starting January 1, 2026. In future years, CMS will select for negotiation up to 15 more drugs covered under Part D for 2027, up to 15 more drugs for 2028 (including drugs covered under Part B and Part D), and up to 20 more drugs for each year after that, as outlined in the IRA.  CMS will provide opportunities for public comment at patient-focused listening sessions in Fall 2023.

“For far too long, pharmaceutical companies have made record profits while American families were saddled with record prices and unable to afford life-saving prescription drugs,” says Secretary Xavier Becerra, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “Although drug companies are attempting to block Medicare from being able to negotiate for better drug prices, we will not be deterred,” she pledges. 

With the announcement of the first drugs selected for Medicare drug price negotiation, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure noted it marked a significant and historic moment for the Medicare program. ”Our goal with these negotiations is to improve access to some of the costliest drugs for millions of people with Medicare while driving competition and innovation,” she said.

Adds Meena Seshamani, MD, PhD, CMS’s Deputy Administrator and Director of the Center for Medicare, “Promoting transparency and engagement continue to be at the core of how we are implementing the new drug law and the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, and that is why we set out a process for the first round of negotiation that engages the public throughout.” 

“No one should have to choose between paying for lifesaving medication and other basic necessities, like food and housing,” says Rep. Seth Magaziner, representing Rhode Island’s Congressional District 2.  Nearly 191,000 Rhode Islanders are enrolled in Medicare Part D and could be eligible for cost savings that results from CMS’s negotiating with drug makers, he says, noting that.  Rhode Island seniors paid an average of $6,022 in out-of-pocket costs per year for one of the drugs selected for Medicare Price Negotiations.  These drugs are used to treat some of the most common diseases like diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, blood clots, and cancers.   

But PhRMA and U.S. Chamber of Commerce express strong concerns over imposing government price controls on the price of medications.  

CMS’s release of 10 drugs selected for negotiation “is the result of a rushed process focused on short-term political gain rather than what is best for patients,” says PhRMA) President and CEO Stephen J. Ubl. “Many of the medicines selected for price setting already have significant rebates and discounts due to the robust private market negotiation that occurs in the Part D program today,” he claims.

“Giving a single government agency the power to arbitrarily set the price of medicines with little accountability, oversight or input from patients and their doctors will have significant negative consequences long after this administration is gone,” warns Ubl.

Furthermore, “insurance companies and their Pharmacy Benefit Managers may further restrict access to medicines through increased utilization management, higher copays and more restrictive formularies, notes Ubl.

USCoC also expresses strong concerns over HHS’s move to impose government price controls on medications. While USCoC is supportive of affordable medications, it warns that an implementing government price controls scheme is both “counterproductive and will restrict access to critical medicines, delay treatment for patients, and jeopardize the search for new lifesaving cures,” says Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley. 

“In its rush to implement the IRA’s price control scheme, the Biden administration failed to examine the likely negative side effects of the policy, charges Bradley.

Celebrating a Sweet Victory

“The negotiated drugs list is a watershed moment for medicine affordability. Drug corporations pretend this is a catastrophe, but I would rather see that money in seniors’ pockets than Big Pharma’s,”  says Peter Maybarduk, director of the Access to Medicines program at Public Citizen

“Drug corporations, in crude arrogance, are suing to limit price negotiations under the IRA. But the list shows instead how important it is to expand those negotiation powers. Several monopolized drugs that are expensive for Medicare today are exempted from price negotiation, and will remain expensive,” predicts Maybarduk, explaining that for a many-years long grace period after a drug first comes to market. “During those years, drug makers will exploit patent monopolies with minimal checks on profiteering. That profiteering period is even longer for biologics, which comprise some of the most exorbitantly priced drugs,” he says. 

“This is an historic day in the effort to lower prescription drug prices for seniors.  The Biden administration has released the names of the 10 life-saving drugs that will be subject — for the first time ever — to price negotiation between Medicare and Big Pharma,” stated Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

According to Richtman, the Inflation Reduction Act provides for this reform, in addition to a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap for patients’ Medicare Part D drug costs and penalties for drug-makers who hike prices above the rate of inflation. Medicare price negotiation alone is expected to save seniors and taxpayers billions of dollars in drug costs over next the decade.

“This is a sea change in the government’s ability to lower prescription drug prices for older Americans, who all too often are compelled to ration medications or forgo filling prescriptions because of soaring costs. NCPSSM has fought for Medicare to be empowered to negotiate prices for some twenty years now,” adds Richtman., noting that the next step is to enlarge the number and type of medications subject to negotiation, to deliver maximum relief to seniors on fixed incomes.   

“Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for these first 10 drugs will finally bring much needed access and relief to American families, particularly older adults. We cannot overstate how monumental this law is for older Americans’ financial stability and overall health, said AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond. 

“The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore. AARP will keep fighting to protect Medicare negotiation from any efforts to undo or weaken it, so all older Americans can afford their lifesaving medicines,” Says LeaMond.

And Alex Lawson, Executive Director of Social Security Works, says CMS’s listing of 10 drugs are among the most outrageously priced drugs on the market, calling these drugs, “Pharma’s prized cash cows.”

“This is just the beginning,” says Lawson, predicting that within a decade, Medicare will have the power to negotiate lower prices on well over 100 drugs. “That’s a huge win for seniors and people with disabilities,” she adds, noting that it is the biggest legislative defeat Big Pharma has ever suffered – and it won’t be the last.

Final Note…

Vincent Marzullo, who serves on the Board of the Senior Agenda Coalition of RI as well as a member of Congressman Magaziner’s Senior Advisory Committee, says that despite CMS’s  announcement of the 10 drugs to be negotiated, consumers won’t realize a penny in savings until January 2026, 28 months from now. “Unfortunately, urgency seems not to be a feature of the Inflation Reduction Act at least when we will get lower priced prescriptions,” he says.

View a fact sheet from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/705b9c384d493e442a1d4004905cf8ae/ASPE-IRA-Drug-Negotiation-Fact-Sheet.pdf.

More information on the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is available at https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation.

Ratcheting up SSA’s customer service will take more funding 

Published in RINewsToday on May 1, 2023

Over two months ago, as required by law, Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration (SSA) released the fiscal year 2023 operating plan to Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The report, released on Feb. 10, 2023, details how SSA plans to use its $14.1 billion budget allocation for the year. 

Kijakazi wrote in the report’s transmittal letter: “In FY 2023, we will build the foundation for improved services by rebuilding our workforce after ending FY 2022 at our lowest staffing level in over 25 years.”

According to Kijakazi, at the end of Dec. 2022 the initial SSA claims-pending level soared to almost 975,000 cases.  This was more than 380,000 cases higher than at the end of FY 2019. “The average initial claims wait time through Dec. 2022 was 206 days compared to 120 days in FY 2019.  It will take a multi-year effort and sustained funding to restore our average initial disability claims wait times to pre-pandemic levels,” she says.

While Kijakazi anticipates processing 129,000 or 7% more initial disability claims in FY 2022 (52 weeks), she expects wait times for a disability decision at the initial and appeal levels to increase for a period of time because backlogs will continue to grow while the agency hires and trains new staff. 

Although the FY 2022 outlay represents $785 million of the agency’s budget of $13.34 billion, it was less than the $14.8 billion President Joe Biden requested for administration funding. In February 10th correspondence to the House and Senate Appropriation Committees, Kijakazi stated that while budget increases will cover fixed costs and support staffing in the upcoming fiscal year, “some performance will show improvement in FY 2023, while others will show temporary degradation.” 

Conversations regarding SSA’s customer service challenges

In February 28th correspondence to SSA’s Kijakazi, AARP’s Nancy LeaMond, Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer, recognized increased funding was necessary for SSA to address its customer service problems. AARP recognizes that federal funding has not kept pace with increases in operational cost and demands, but the agency “needs to do more to constrain operating costs and increase productivity,” Kijakazi says.

LeaMond called the “expected decline in service troubling, given multiple assurances from SSA that the funding level received would be sufficient to at least maintain the modest customer service improvements made last year.”

“Your operating plan asserts that the already unacceptable average of call wait time of 33 minutes will be longer this year, increasing to 35 minutes, and people trying to call the agency will get a busy signal 15 percent of the time, more than double the rate last year.  This is an unacceptable step backward,” wrote LeaMond.

LeaMond says that SSA’s operating plan doesn’t address several customer service areas, especially the challenges of beefing up staff to improve in-person services and reducing wait times and busy rates that the public should expect when calling their local office.  She called for more details and when beneficiaries can expect improvements to online services.

“Even more concerning is the fact that the operating plans note that disability-related service improvements are not expected to occur before 2024 fiscal year,” adds Leamond. While the plan provides details about disability claims, and appeal workloads, as well as prioritization of claimants who have been waiting the longest, she calls on SSA to “act more quickly to improve the disability process.”

“The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) has large fixed costs, such as rent on its network of 1200 field offices, and those fixed costs increase every year. SSA’s funding does not come from the general government budget, but rather from Social Security’s accumulated reserve of $2.8 trillion. Yet for over a decade, Congress has restricted SSA from spending the funds necessary for adequate service,” says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works (SSW).

Adds Altman, “While Congress this year allowed SSA to spend more, the additional dollars did not even cover all the fixed costs. They certainly did not correct the many years of underfunding. Service will not significantly improve unless Congress allows SSA to spend more of  Social Security’s accumulated reserve  — at the bare minimum,  the $15.5 billion that President Biden has requested — but ideally significantly more.”

Biden budget seeks to fix SSA’s customer service issues

In a blog article penned on March 30, 2023, Kathleen Romig, Director of Social Security and Disability Policy at the Washington, DC-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, says that SSA has an opportunity to ratchet up its consumer service impacted by decades of restricted funds by receiving increased funding. “With additional funding in for the coming year, the agency could invest in the staff and technology it needs to better serve the public,” she says.

“Since 2010, SSA’s customer service budget has fallen by 17 percent after inflation, with its staffing falling a commensurate 16 percent – marking the lowest level in 25 years. These cuts happened even as the number of Social Security beneficiaries grew by 12 million, or 22 percent. Being forced to serve millions more people with fewer staff and resources has caused tremendous strain at SSA, and beneficiaries are suffering the consequences,” says Romig.

On March 9th, Biden released a FY 2024 budget calling for increased appropriations to SSA. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the president’s budget provides an increase of $1.4 billion (a 10% increase) over the FY 2023 budget to cover salaries, benefits and rent increases. It would also improve customer service at field offices, state disability determination services, and teleservice centers.   

Each year, SSA processes more than 6 million retirement, survivors, and Medicare claims, and more than 2 million disability and SSI claims, says OMB, charged with producing the president’s budget. Biden’s budget increase boosts staffing levels from FY 2023, allowing the agency to process about a half a million more disability cases in FY 2024 that were completed in FY 2022, significantly reducing wait times for those decisions.

GOP debt limit bill drastically cuts SSA’s operating budget

Just last week, by a razor thin margin, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)’s Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023 (H.R. 2811) passed by a partisan vote of 217-215. Four Republicans voted “no”. While this legislation to lift the nation’s debt limit allows the U.S. Treasury to pay the nation’s bills, it has no chance for passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate. However, it will force the president’s team to the negotiation table with Republican House and Senate leadership, hoping it will push compromise on future spending limits.

Failure to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic consequences for the U.S. and global economies, as well as for all Americans, who rely on the federal budget to provide public services. (from Social Security and Medicare to food safety inspection, air traffic control, school nutrition, and environmental. 

After the House vote, Alex Lawson, SSW’s Executive Director of Social Security, charged that 217 House Republicans just voted to cut Social Security. “Nearly every Republican in the U.S. House just voted to slash the already inadequate funding of the Social Security Administration (SSA). If this bill becomes law, it will force SSA to close field offices, reduce hours, and lay off thousands of workers. This will make it far harder for Americans to claim the benefits they’ve earned,” warned Lawson. “Cuts to SSA are cuts to Social Security, and we will hold every single one of these members accountable,” he says.

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) agrees with SSW’s assessment. One day before the vote, he wrote House members to urge them to pass “clean’ debt limit legislation.

“If the spending cuts and other [GOP] legislative changes that are incorporated in this legislation were ever to become law, the negative impact would be felt by virtually every American family in every Congressional District in the country,” wrote Richtman.

According to Richtman, the GOP’s proposed debt limit legislation includes among its provisions a roll-back of ALL discretionary federal spending to Fiscal Year 2022 levels in FY 2024, with growth limited to one prevent annually for the next decade. “This is not a minor trimming of spending that has been portrayed by some, but a dramatic slashing that will have devastating impacts on the Americans who rely on the affected programs for their health and well-being,” says the nationally recognized Social Security advocate. 

Reluctance to cut Defense and Veteran Health funding would have at least a 23 percent reduction to all other programs for FY 2024, charges Richtman, this resulting in funding cuts to SSA’s customer service budget.

“Cutting funding by six percent would significantly affect SSA’s ability to serve the public and undermine the Agency’s core-mission – producing longer wait times for benefits and to reach SSA representatives, as well as reduced access to in-person programs, noted Richtman, stressing that face-to-face access with SSA’s employees is critical to those who are elderly and disabled.

SSA calculates that for every $100 million in additional funding cut the federal agency would be forced to lay off an additional 1,000 employees, this equivalent to closing 40 field offices, says Richtman.

Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents, says the U.S. Treasury.  Like in the past, this Congress must follow to raise the nation’s debt limit, and is expected to do so.

Ultimately, it is crucial for Biden and McCarthy’s negotiations to hammer out a “clean” debt limits bill that will not cut SSA’s operational funding further which could send the agency’s customer service efforts into a tailspin. It is time for Congress to fix SSA’s operational funding issues once and for all to improve customer service provided to 65 million beneficiaries. 

For a copy of SSA’s 2023 Operating Plan go to https://www.ssa.gov/budget/assets/materials/2023/2023OP.pdf.

For a summary of H.R. 2811, Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023, go to 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr2811/summary

For a copy of President Biden’s FY 2024 Budget, go to:  https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2023/03/09/fact-sheet-the-presidents-budget-for-fiscal-year-2024.