Tag Archives for Max Richtman

Presidential Commission Kicks off Social Security Reform Debate

Published in Pawtucket Times on December 17, 2001

Amid the nation mobilizing for a global fight against terrorism, a sliding economy with a rising unemployment rate, the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security last week released its bipartisan plan to fix the ailing Social Security program.

With elections looming next year, Congress will be forced to turn it attention to politically sticky domestic issue, how to modernize and restore the fiscal soundness of the Social Security program.

Finishing up its seven months of work, the 16-member Presidential Commission, divided evenly among Democrats and Republican, voted unanimously to sent its 165-page final report in draft form to the Bush White House. Two days after the panel released its report, House Republicans threw two bills into the legislative hopper, mirroring several of the recommended approaches.  The Social Security debate has begun.

While the Commission estimates that it will cost at least $2 trillion to revamp Social Security, it does not identify where the funds will come from.

Specifically, three approaches were suggested by the federal panel as a way of bringing reforms to the Social Security program. All involved the creation of voluntary personal accounts with a premise that workers investing in these accounts would ultimately receive higher retirement benefits by their investing in the social market.  Meanwhile, two plans seek provide better retirement benefits by their investing in the stock market.  Meanwhile, two plans seek to provide better benefits to low-income workers. All plans would seek to restore the fiscal stability of Social Security.

Senior advocacy groups are now weighting in on this highly visible and controversial policy issue that will likely become a key election issue next year. “None of the three draft plans put forward by the Commission today achieves the goal set out by the President, closing the gap in the program’s solvency over the next 75 years. None of the plans explain how it will achieve solvency. These plans do not change the fact that private accounts expose future beneficiaries to unnecessary risk and widely varying outcomes in retirement security,” charges Max Richtman, executive director of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Furthermore, with the push to privatization through individual accounts, the Commission does not address the issue of the impact to the existing Social Security program if moderate and higher-wage earners pull their money out of the  system, states Richtman, stressing that the Commission does not see to have considered the potential impact of such an adverse selection on the stability of the program.

“With privatization, the devel is always in the details, and the Commission has failed to provide adequate details,” Richtman adds. ”They have not provided the nuts and boots of how the plans would work and how they would affect real people.”

According to AARP CEO William Novelli, a number of questions remain unanswered by the Commission report, specifically, “the long-term financing of benefit guarantees, particularly if current budget projects and market rates of return prove to be overly optimistic.”

When the Social Security debate begins, Novelli calls for other reform proposals to be considered, such a diversifying the Social Security Trust Funds’ investments by including federally-backed debt instruments, along with raising the wage base for payroll taxes and adding newly hired state and municipal employees to the program.

U.S. Rep. T. Matsu (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee agrees with the concerns of senior advocates. Restoring solvency of the Social Security program by workers investing part of their payroll tax in the stock market is a flawed approach and not the best strategy to  restore the fiscal integrity of the Social Security program, he says.

Privatization of Social Security would either require benefit cuts or a large infusion of federal dollars, warns U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), who serves on the House Appropriations Committee and sits as a member of the House Aging Caucus.

The Rhode Island Democrat who gives the Commission report a thumbs-down, states, “There is no question that we need to encourage American’s to save more for retirement, but while we do this, we should not throw the ‘baby out with the bath water’ by raising the retirement age, diverting the Social Security Trust Fund into privatization schemes or cutting benefits to seniors.” The four-term Congressman, whose legislative district has a large elderly constituency plans to make Social Security reform a key for his campaign in the upcoming elections next year.

Jeff Neal, a spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), tells All About Seniors that the senator does not necessary support or oppose some amount of privatization. “No amazingly specific proposal has come forward, been debated or has been thoroughly analyzed yet, Neal says. “Until that happens, it is impossible to determine if it is a good idea or not.”

Neal adds that Sen. Chafee believes that all the Democratic concerns need to be debated and resolved before Congress goes forward with any plan. “Democratic talking points look at the Commission work as a very simplistic level. Social Security is possible, besides the Medicare program, the most complex federal program, and a great deal of debate and input from both sides will be needed to tackle the solvency issue,” he says.

“Rhode Islanders need to step up and take credit for being leaders in the best social reform, notably Medicare,” urges AARP Executive Director Kathleen S. Connell. The late Democratic Congressman John Fogery and Aime J. Forand were the moving forces to create the is key federal program to protect the health and well-being of America’s seniors. “It is up to the current Rhode Island delegation to pick up the torch and lead the efforts to enact meaningful legislation to preserve and protect the Social Security program.”

Social Security funds could be up for grabs

Published in Pawtucket Times on September 10, 2001

Don’t expect quick government action to provide prescription drug benefits to seniors or immediate meaningful Social Security or Medicare reforms soon.  With the backdrop of a $1.35 trillion Bush White House tax cut, a shrinking budget surplus combined with an ailing economy and dwindling consumer confidence, Congress may be forced to take from “Peter to pay Paul.”

But let me give you the political translation…According to a recent released Congression Budget Office (CBO) August 2001 report, the federal government will need to use $9 billion of the tax receipts used to buy bonds invested in the Social Security trust fund in the fiscal year that ends September 30 to made ends meet, increasing the likelihood that heated bipartisan bickering and congressional gridlock will occur when lawmakers being their efforts to pass next year’s 13 spending bills.

Don’t look for things to get better soon, says the nonpartisan CBO, because by 2003 it’s estimated that $18 billion in Social Security reserves will be needed to keep the government in operation.  By 2005, CBO notes that if current tax and spending policies are followed, and the economy performs as the agency estimates, on budget surpluses will emerge.

Senior groups have expressed concern about the federal government having the dip into the cash generated from Social Security payroll taxes, calling it a tragedy that will block passage of any meaningful prescription drug benefit proposals or Medicare and Social Security reforms.  “The loss of tax revenue due to the present’s tax cuts and the slowing economy will lead to new federal debt and $600 billion in additional interest payments over the next ten years,”  predicted Max Richtman, executive director of the Washington D.C. based National Committee to preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“It’s enough to pat for a generous prescription drug benefit under Medicare,” Richtman says.

“Now it looks like the federal government will have to pay bondholders instead of providing seniors with the help they need on prescription drugs, Richtman added, noting that it’s a case of misplaced priorities.

“The $600 billion (in additional interest payments) could fund a prescription drug program with co-payments and deductible at a level that is more affordable for all seniors,”  Richtman says.  Meanwhile, any funds not used could help pay for repair of glasses, refitting dentures and new batteries for hearing aids, all costs not covered by Medicare. 

Adds Ed Zesk, president of Aging 2000, a nonprofit consumer organization focused on improving health care for seniors, “Its is unfortunate that the Bush administration got caught up in tax cut rhetoric to the point where they are focused into a corner and gave a tax cut without accessing its impact on the future of Medicare and Social Security.  While Americans certainly appreciate a few bucks back from Uncle Sam it is a shame that a nation we are potentially mortgaging our future health care and Social Security for a short term tax rebate.

“Clearly the tax cut has made it virtually impossible to develop any kind of meaningful prescription drug proposal for Medicare,”  Zesk told All About Seniors.  “This is just one example of the long-term benefit being sacrificed for the short-term gains,” he says.

Kathleen S. Connell, executive director of AARP Rhode Island, states that  AARP also opposes a federal government raid on the Social Security funds to finance other government programs.  However, the nation’s largest senior advocacy group was pleased that earlier this year both Congress and President Bush had agreed to protect Social Security by using surplus funds in the program for only debt reduction.  “To use the surplus funds other than for debt reduction would undermine that consensus and signal a trend that we believe would not be good economic policy,” Connell said.

According to AARP research, the overall balances for the program funds would not be affected and full benefits could be paid up until 2038, Connell said.  “The key thing that needs to be understood as long as the surplus is used for debt reduction, it would reduce the obligation of future generations and free up money to help the economy.”

With Congress going back into session, lawmakers must now begin the task of passing 13 appropriation bills for the fiscal year beginning October 1.  With the CBO report raising the issue of spending the Social Security receipts, it is now time for Congress to quit finger-pointing and charging each other of raiding the  Social Security and Medicare program.

With the graying of America, Congress must be aside its political differences and work toward long-range bipartisan solutions to ensure the solvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs.  No longer should seniors accept quick political fixes from either political party.