Tag Archives for Bush Administration

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.

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.

Bill Seeks to Soften Impact of Medicare Cuts

Published in Pawtucket Times on September 23, 2002

One week to go before the new federal Medicare cuts go into effect – cuts that will slash $1.7 billion in 2003 funding for the developmentally disabled and frail seniors in nursing facilities.

According to the American Health Care Association (AHCA), over the next two year’s cumulative Medicare cuts, called the “Medicare Cliff,” will total a whopping $5.2 billion.

Meanwhile, AHCA, representing 12,000 nonprofit long-term care providers, has been lobbying Congress for federal relief from the draconian reductions.

A new ad appearing in the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, reminds lawmakers that the upcoming cuts could lead to reduced nurse staffing and puts residents at risk.

In the upcoming November elections, voters might just get riled up too, over Medicare being cut by 10 percent, says AHCA.

The Roll Call ad notes a recent national survey of 800 persons found that 84.6 percent of the respondents opposed cutting Medicare funding for nursing facility care by 10 percent.

Additionally, 64.1 percent were less likely to vote for a candidate running for Congress if they knew that the candidate “voted to cut Medicare funding for nursing facility for nursing facility care by billions.”

Charles H. Roadman, II, M.D., AHCA’s president and CEO noted that a recent study by the University of North Carolina School of Public Health confirms the devastating impact of the impending Medicare cuts.

The study says that cuts could lead to reduced numbers of staff caring for seniors in nursing facilities, thus jeopardizing quality of care.

“At a time when the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) and nursing care providers are actively pursuing efforts to improve the quality of care in nursing facilities throughout the nation, new federal cuts to Medicare are inconsistent with achieving this important goal,” says Dr. Roadman.

Roberta Hawkins, executive director of the Alliance for Nursing Home Care and state ombudsman agree with Roadman’s assessment.

“Huge Medicare cuts pull the carpet from under the federal quality initiatives that take effect across the country in October,” she tells All About Seniors. “The right hand of the federal government does not seem to know what the left hand is doing.”

According to Hawkins, the staffing shortage in Rhode Island is having a drastic impact on the quality of care delivered to more than 10,000 residentes.

“The upcoming Medicare cuts combined with an outdated Medicaid payment system will only further compromise patient care in the Ocean State,” she says.

U.S. Rep. James Langevin and House colleagues today announced a legislative fix that would delay scheduled cuts for nursing facilities and assisted living facilities in Rhode Island.

Langevin is co-sponsoring the Medicare Skilled Nursing Beneficiary Protection Act, sponsored by Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME), that would extend Medicare reimbursement add-ons for three years, through 2005, to allow the Bush administration more time to implement an adequate reimbursement formula for skill nursing facilities.

Langevin and the other bill sponsors hope this new timetable will obviate the need for further cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates, which would place severe financial burdens on nursing facilities.

Langevin stated that unless Congress acts this year, Medicare funding for skilled nursing care will be cut by 10 percent in 2003 and 19 percent in 2004 – translating to cuts of nearly $ 35 per patient per day in 2003 and $68 in 2004.

The Rhode Island congressman believes that in the Ocean State, the Medicare cuts will be even greater than the national average totaling $ 38.81 in 2003 and $ 76.90 in 2004.

“Difficult decisions were made in 1997 with passage of the Balanced Budget Act, and some of the changes were not implemented as Congress intended,” Langevin said. “The Medicare Skilled Nursing Beneficiary Protection Act will postpone further cuts and ensure that critical funding remains available for thousands of Rhode Islanders who rely on skilled nursing services.”

According to Langevin in mid-1998, the new Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) was implemented for skilled nursing care, as mandated in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA).

He noted that the new system resulted in cuts far deeper than intended by Congress.

In 1999 and 2000, Congress temporarily restored some of the unintended cuts as part of the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA) and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA).

These temporary add-ons helped restore beneficiary access to care, but overall Medicare funding levels for skilled nursing facilities continue to be below BBA projections, Langevin said.

“I am wholly committed to making the restorations of 1999 and 2000 permanent,” he said.

“We cannot turn our backs on a generation who built and defended the very foundation of this nation. They answered the call of our nation -now we must answer theirs.”