Tag Archives for Donald J. Trump

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. 

Religious Groups Urge House to Combat Antisemitism and Racism

Published in the Woonsocket Call on July 1, 2019

For the second year in a row, the Rhode Island General Assembly’s Senate Judiciary Committee heard a resolution, introduced by State Senator Donna Nesselbush (Democrat, District 15, Pawtucket), calling on lawmakers to denounce and oppose white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Samuel Bell (Democrat, District 5, Providence), Joshua Miller (Democrat, District 28, Cranston), Gayle Goldin (Democrat, District 3, Providence) and Ana Quezada (Democrat, District 2, Providence),

The initial resolution, introduced in 2017, urged state police to consider White Nationalists and Neo Nazi groups as terrorists. Because of First Amendment concerns expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island that resolution was held for further study, and the language was reworked this run so as not to run afoul of free speech concerns.

Senate Moves to Fight Antisemitism and Racial Intolerance Head On

At the May 30 hearing, Nesselbush (Democrat, District 15, Pawtucket) pushed for passage of S0829, a resolution calling on Rhode Island to “denounce and oppose and the totalitarian impulses, violent terrorism, xenophobic’ biases, and bigoted ideologies that are promoted by white nationalists and neo-Nazis.” She reminded the Senate panel that Rhode Island was founded on Roger William’s principles of religious tolerance, and the state should denounce any type of white supremacy or neo-Nazism and take a stand for religious freedom and tolerance.

Nesslebush’s Senate resolution unanimously passed in Senate Judiciary Committee and ultimately on the Senate Floor. With its passage, no further action is required and the resolution will be transmitted to the Secretary of State, who is charged in the resolution with transmitting certified copies of the resolution to President Donald J. Trump, the members of the Rhode Island Congressional delegation, and Governor Gina Raimondo.

When asked about a House companion resolution that denounces and opposes White Nationalists and Neo Nazi groups, Larry Berman, the House’s Director of Communication, says that Rep. Jean Philippe Barros (Democrat, District 59, Pawtucket) had planned to introduce one but “because it was getting late in the session” he was unable to get his bill introduced. It should be noted that Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio allowed Nesselbush to introduce her Senate resolution recognizing its merit and importance to the Jewish community.

Calls for the House to Confront the Boldness of Hate Groups

As the House is poised to release its anticipated state budget, religious groups and supporters of Nesselbush’s resolution, call for the lower chamber to take a strong stand to denounce and oppose White Nationalists and Neo Nazi groups.

As President of the Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island, being active and serving as Rabbi at Temple Beth-El, Rabbi Sarah Mack, says it’s not too late for the to take a stand against antisemitism. “As Jews, we fight against bigotry and extremism because as a people we have experienced the danger of hate firsthand. While it is important to focus on extremism in all of its forms, we appreciate this resolution that calls attention to white supremacists, neo-Nazis and their hateful agenda. Because of this, I am so thankful to the Senate for passing this resolution, and I beseech our House leadership to do the same.”

Adds Adam Greenman, President and CEO of the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island, “we are committed to combating hatred in all forms. This resolution would give our state the opportunity to stand up against groups that promote anti-Semitism, white supremacy and other forms of toxic and dangerous rhetoric. We ask those in the House of Representatives to join us in supporting this resolution.”

Rev. Dr. Donnie Anderson, Executive Minister, of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, notes the importance for the House to support Nesslebush’s Senate resolution to fight hate. “In recent years hate speech has found a new platform in social media and is flourishing in the current political climate. This explosion of hate DEMANDS a response from our political leaders. Rhode Island is blessed with wonderful interfaith leaders who interact on a regular basis and have built an atmosphere of caring, respect and trust. This group consistently and often speaks against hate, but we need to hear from ALL of our political leaders. We urge passage of this timely and thoughtful resolution.”

Steve Ahlquist, a reporter at UpriseRI, a Rhode Island news web site covering progressive issues, testified in support of Nesselbush’s Senate resolution, gives his two cents about the importance of politicians combating hate groups. Ahlquist stressed, “Though this resolution is largely symbolic and does not have the force of law, it is important nonetheless that our elected officials ally themselves with Rhode Islanders most at risk of white supremacist violence. It has been documented by myself and others that these groups have twice come to our state to engage in violence, and have promised to return. Residents of Rhode Island need to know that our elected officials will have our backs when they are confronting these hate groups.”

“Our elected officials should be eager to repudiate white supremacy and neo-Nazism. There has been violence done and violence planned in Rhode Island by hate groups visiting our state. There has been and hate crimes at synagogues and mosques. The Senate passed a resolution with ease. It is truly the least we can expect from the House to follow suit,” says Ahlquist.

Rhode Island Religious Community Takes a Stand

For years, it has been reported that antisemitism is becoming firmly entrenched in the Ocean State. In 2017, the Providence Journal reported that the New England chapter of the Anti-Defamation League recorded 13 incidents of antisemitism in Rhode Island. Nazi swastikas were painted on a Providence building, at Broad Rock Middle School in North Kingstown, and even at a Pawtucket synagogue in Oakhill, just a five-minute walk from my house, reported Rhode Island’s largest daily.

When I testified for passage of Senate Resolution 0829, I told the Senators that I often wondered what I would have done if I stood on a street in Germany in 1938 seeing all those windows broken (during a two-day pogrom, referred to as Kristallnacht. Would I have the courage or the gumption to go up to somebody dressed in a brown shirt with a swastika armband and stop him from hitting an elderly Jew?
Hopefully yes, but who knows.

But, on May 30, 2019, at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I sat beside Sen. Nesselbush and Steve Ahlquist as we “took a stand,” calling on the Committee to pass S 082. Knowing the wisdom in denouncing and opposing the hateful philosophy of white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups that is becoming all too common in Rhode Island, the Senate took its stand.

After all, Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams on the principle of religious tolerance, and we’re the home of America’s oldest synagogue, the Touro Synagogue, in Newport. What does it say to the nation, and especially to the state’s Jewish, racial, ethnic, LGTBQ communities if the House does not take an opportunity to oppose and denounce hate in their own backyard?

Hopefully, House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello will reconsider allowing a resolution, with no fiscal cost, to be introduced to give House lawmakers, like their Senate colleagues, an opportunity to oppose white nationalists and neo-Nazi groups. It is important for both chambers to take a legislative stand to combat the rising incidence of antisemitism and racist incidents. The resolution serves the purpose of sending the message, hate groups who are planning to come to Rhode Island to cause violence are not welcome here.

AARP Survey Gives a Snapshot of Midterm Election Results

Published in the Woonsocket Call on November 25, 2018

Before November 6, President Donald J. Trump and Congressional Republicans rolled the dice betting on what midterm election issues would propel them to a midterm election victory in retaining control of Congress. But the results were a mixed bag. While maintaining a majority in the Senate, the GOP lost control of the lower chamber.

Many were surprised that the Republican-controlled White House and Congress did not tout an improved national economy, but chose to focus their campaign attack ads on the intense Democratic attack on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s character during his Supreme Court nomination hearing, a caravan of thousands of immigrants marching to the U.S.-Mexico border to escape poverty and violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador and law and order. Democrats put their chips on access to health care, Social Security, Medicare, and putting the brakes on skyrocketing prescription drug costs.

Although the GOP maintained control in the Senate (by a majority of 52 to 47), voters put the Democrats in control of the House, with the winning of 232 seats, reaching the magical number of 218 seats, required to take control of the chamber.

Health Care a Key Issue for Voters in Midterm Election

Just days ago, the Washington, DC-based AARP released findings of a national poll of general election voters, along with over samples in both 39 GOP-held seats that flipped to a Democrat and 37 GOP-held seats targeted as competitive by the Cook Political Report that held for the GOP.

AARP’s bipartisan post-election poll, fielded jointly by Fabrizio Ward and Benenson Strategy Group, found that, for 50-plus voters, Social Security, Medicare, and health care were their top midterm issues, pushing them to vote. The 2,800-voter survey (of General Election voters) also indicated age 50 and over voters across the board are also concerned about bipartisan bickering and gridlock inside the Washington, DC – Beltway, saying they favored a candidate who will work across the aisle.

“Older Americans were crystal clear that health care was the most important issue in this election,” said John Hishta, AARP Senior Vice President of Campaigns in a statement announcing the release of the 22-page report detailing survey findings on November 16. “They want Congress to come together to find commonsense solutions to lowering health care costs and they can start by preventing drug companies from price gouging older Americans and all taxpayers.,” says Hishta.

Adds Tony Fabrizio, of Fabrizio Ward, “Fifty plus voters chose Donald Trump by a wide margin two years ago. This year they were instrumental in Democrats retaking the House. They have become a formidable swing voting block for 2020.”

“This election made it clear that candidates and parties can’t build a winning-coalition without older Americans – or take their vote for granted.” said Amy Levin, Partner Benenson Strategy Group.

Taking a Closer Look…

The AARP survey revealed that while voter survey respondents under age 50 were more likely to identify as Independents, those age 50 and over were most likely to affiliate as either Democrat or Republican.

According to the AARP survey, for age 50-plus voters, concerns about Social Security (83 percent), Medicare (79 percent) and health care (79 percent) were their top midterm issues. However, younger voters find education (67 percent), health care (64 percent) and the economy (66 percent) to be most important to them.

The findings clearly show that the surveyed voters sent a message at the polls on November 6 that they want Democrats and Republicans to govern and not to not get mired down in political gridlock. In GOP-held districts that Democrats flipped, 63 percent of the age 50 and over voters wanted elected officials to work in a bipartisan manner. For districts the GOP held, 65 percent of voters felt the same way. While voters of both political parties expect more political gridlock, younger voters surveyed were even more pessimistic when compared to age 50 voters that this could happen.

AARP’s post-midterm election survey revealed that a pink wave was key in electing Democratic candidates, say the pollsters. Age 50 and over women were instrumental in the Democrat’s in gaining House seats — they favored a Democrat for House by 12 percent in the districts Democrats flipped.

The AARP survey found that the majority of survey respondents approved many of Trump’s policies, while almost 2/3 disapproved of him personally. The pollsters also noted that in districts held by the GOP, 55 percent of age 50-plus voters approved of President Donald Trump’s policies and 38 percent approve of him personally.

But the AARP survey revealed that voters nationally and in Dem Flips wanted a check on Trump, especially the independent voters. Obviously, GOP Hold
districts voters were more favorable to Senate and House candidates who supported Trump ‘s policy agenda. Age 50 and over voters wanted a check on Trump (by 6-points), this being smaller than the margin of voters under age 50.

Both Democratic flips and GOP Hold Districts were whiter and older than the nation as a whole, but Democratic Flips took places in districts that were more suburban, educated and affluent. But, key to the Democratic national successes in both the Dem Flip & GOP Hold segments was Independents age 50 and over voting Democrat by double digit margins across the board.

Meanwhile, while less Democratic friendly than voters under age 50, those age 50 and over narrowly favored the Democratic candidate both nationwide and in districts Democrats flipped from Republicans. And, their support for Republican candidates in the GOP Hold districts helped Republican losses from being even worse.

In October, AARP released, a 52-page report, “2018 Mid-Term Election Voter Issue Survey,” that found that the majority of those surveyed said that they would vote for candidates that supported lowering health care costs, strengthening and reforming Social Security and Medicare, putting the brakes to skyrocketing prescription drug costs. AARP’s post-election survey clearly mirrors these priorities.

With the 116th Congress convenes on January 3, 2019, Republican and Democratic lawmakers along with President Trump must work to put aside their political differences and govern by crafting bipartisan legislation that benefits the nation. As can be seen by AARP’s bipartisan post-election survey, voters demand this.

For more details on the survey’s findings, call Colby Nelson at (202) 434-2584 or email, cnelson@aarp.org.