Tag Archives for Politics

With the Latest SSA Trustee Report Released, Congress Must Act Now to Fix Social Security

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on June 24, 2025

Just before Medicare celebrates its 60th anniversary this July and Social Security marks its 90th birthday in August, the Social Security Board of Trustees recently released its annual report on the financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds.

According to this year’s estimate, by 2033, projected revenues will only cover 77% of scheduled benefits—unless Congress takes action to address the program’s looming shortfall. Combining the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds would extend coverage for another year, ensuring 81% of scheduled benefits through 2034, instead of 2035, as previously estimated.

The trustees also reported that Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare Part A, which covers certain healthcare services) will be able to pay full benefits until 2033, a year earlier than the previous estimate of 2024. At that point, the fund is expected to cover 89% of benefits.

For 2024, the Social Security Administration (SSA) paid $1.47 trillion in benefits to about 68 million beneficiaries, while its administrative costs were just $7.4 billion—representing a very low 0.5% of total expenditures. However, the projected 75-year actuarial deficit is 3.82% of taxable payroll, higher than the 3.50% projected in last year’s report.

Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, stressed that ensuring the financial stability of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration. “We must work together—Congress, SSA, and others—to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse to protect and strengthen the trust funds for millions of Americans who rely on it for secure retirement or disability benefits,” he stated.

In responding to the released Trustee’s report, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John B. Larson (D-CT) criticized the current administration’s approach, calling the Trustees’ Report a wake-up call to enhance Social Security for the first time in more than 50 years. Larson also pushed back against misleading claims from President Trump and Elon Musk about waste and abuse within the system. “Seniors, veterans, and disabled workers rely on these earned benefits, and they’re counting on Congress to do its job,” Larson said. “While Republicans push for privatization, Democrats have a plan to protect and expand Social Security.”

Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act, introduced in the last Congress with 189 cosponsors, aims to strengthen Social Security by expanding benefits and increasing payroll taxes to ensure the program’s long-term solvency.

Media Headlines on Social Security’s “Insolvency” Create Unnecessary Fear

Some media outlets, including The Washington Post, have raised alarms with bold headlines warning that Social Security could become “insolvent by 2033” or even “bankrupt.” In a statement, Bob Weiner, former Chief of Staff to the U.S. House Committee on Aging, rejects these claims, noting that the SSA currently holds a $2.7 trillion surplus. According to Weiner, the Trustees’ warning that the program may cover only 81% of benefits by 2034 is being misinterpreted as insolvency or bankruptcy. “That’s neither bankruptcy nor insolvency. Congress can fix this, perhaps by raising the income cap on Social Security taxes,” Weiner explains.

Weiner points out that, in 2026, the income cap for paying Social Security taxes is set to be $181,800. He also emphasizes that Social Security has faced repeated budget cuts to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. “We must protect Social Security as a priority,” Weiner says. “As Speaker Emerita Pelosi often reminds us, ‘First, do no harm.’”

Aging Groups Give Their Thoughts About Fixing Social Security

In statements, Social Security advocacy groups have also weighed in on and give   comments on the latest Social Security and Medicare Trustee reports.  

Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, argues that the program is fully affordable and costs only about 6% of the GDP at the end of the 21st century. She believes Congress will act to avert the projected shortfall, as it always has in the past. The key question to ask, Altman says, is whether lawmakers will choose to bring in more money through higher taxes or reduce benefits.

Altman strongly opposes cutting benefits, charges that politicians who don’t support increasing Social Security revenue are, by default, advocating for cuts. She highlights the impact of income inequality, which has cost Social Security over $1.4 trillion since 1983. “If the wealthy paid their fair share into the program, we could easily protect and expand Social Security’s modest benefits,” she notes.

While Americans are divided on many issues, Altman points out that there is broad consensus in support of Social Security. “The real crisis facing Social Security is not a future shortfall, but the ongoing sabotage it’s experiencing now,” she says. Altman specifically references the role of Elon Musk’s DOGE, which has pushed out thousands of Social Security staff members, including nearly half of its senior executives, resulting in an irreplaceable loss of institutional knowledge.

Despite these challenges, Altman notes that Social Security is run efficiently, with administrative costs well under a penny for every dollar spent. A major increase or decrease in administrative spending would have minimal impact on the program’s finances.

Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, says this year’s comments on the Trustees’ report, mirrors those he made last year – It’s time to rebuild reserves in the Social Security Trust Fund. However, he warns against harmful proposals such as raising the retirement age or means-testing benefits, both of which would cut benefits for millions of Americans.

“Raising the retirement age to 69 or 70 would significantly reduce lifetime benefits. These ideas have been part of Republican proposals to address the projected shortfall,” Richtman explains.

Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, urges aging advocacy groups not to remain complacent. “Republicans in Congress are eager to cut the benefits Americans have worked a lifetime to earn,” he warns. “We cannot allow Social Security to be privatized or dismantled.”

Fiesta also calls for stronger Medicare reform, urging Congress to curb the high cost of prescription drugs and hold Medicare Advantage insurance corporations accountable for rising costs that don’t benefit patients.

A Final Note…

Social Security is an essential lifeline for millions of Americans, and its future is now at a crossroads. Can a partisan Congress work together to find a political viable fix?

While the media reports Social Security’s impending insolvency and bankruptcy, there is no doubt that Congress must act soon to ensure the program’s long-term sustainability. Whether through increasing revenue or reforming benefits, the decision on how to strengthen Social Security will shape the future of retirement and disability benefits for generations to come. It’s time for Congress to act.

View the 2025 Trustees Report at www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2025/.

Senior Agenda Coalition of RI pushes wealth tax to fund programs for older residents

Published in RINewsToday on June 2, 2025

With the recent passage of the House Republican budget—which cuts some programs and services for seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and families with children—Sulma Arias, Executive Director of Chicago-based People’s Action (PA), is calling on billionaires and large corporations to finally pay their fair share of taxes.

Senator Bernie Sanders has echoed similar sentiments on the national stage, urging lawmakers to ensure that ultra-wealthy individuals and powerful corporations contribute more equitably to the nation’s economic well-being, rather than shifting the burden to everyday Americans by cutting essential services.

In Rhode Island, Democratic lawmakers are advancing legislation this session that would increase taxes on the state’s highest earners to generate vital revenue for public programs and services.

Proposed Legislation Targets Top Earners

HB 5473, introduced on February 12, 2025, by Rep. Karen Alzate (D-Dist. 60, Pawtucket, Central Falls), was referred to the House Finance Committee. The bill proposes a 3% surtax on taxable income above $625,000—on top of the existing 5.99% rate—targeting the top 1% of Rhode Island tax filers. The surtax is projected to raise approximately $190 million annually and would affect about 5,700 of the state’s more than 500,000 filers. If enacted, the tax would apply to income earned in tax years beginning in 2026 and would not be retroactive.

As of the May 6 House Finance Committee hearing, about 140 pieces of written testimony had been submitted on HB 5473. The committee held the bill for further study, with no additional action yet taken. The proposal remains under consideration as part of ongoing budget negotiations.

A companion bill, S. 329, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Melissa Murray (D-Dist. 24, Woonsocket, North Smithfield) and referred to the Senate Finance Committee. A hearing on the measure was held last Thursday, and the bill was also held for further study.

As the volume of testimony indicates, the battle lines are clearly drawn. Progressive groups and unions support the legislation, while businesses and business organizations, such as the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce, have voiced strong opposition. Governor Dan McKee has not yet taken a public position on the bills.

The Pros and Cons

Supporters argue that with Rhode Island facing a $220 million budget deficit, HB 5473 and S. 329 could raise nearly $190 million annually to fund critical services, including: K-12 and higher education; health care; housing; public transportation; affordable child care; infrastructure, and programs for older adults

They contend that the proposals would bolster the state’s safety net, particularly in light of uncertain federal funding. A more progressive tax structure, they argue, would make the system fairer by reducing the burden on middle- and lower-income residents. Currently, the top 1% of Rhode Island taxpayers control a disproportionate share of the state’s wealth but, when accounting for sales and property taxes, pay a smaller share of their income than lower-income households.

Opponents, however, warn of unintended consequences. They claim the bills would drive wealthy residents and businesses out of the state, eroding the tax base.Supporters dispute this, pointing to IRS and Stanford University studies indicating that wealthy individuals typically relocate for family or climate-related reasons—not for tax considerations. States like California and New Jersey, they note, have implemented similar surtaxes without experiencing significant outmigration.

Morally, proponents argue, those with more resources have a responsibility to help those with less—especially in a post-COVID era when many low-income families continue to struggle.

Yet critics, including the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) along with the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, Northern Rhode Island Chamber of Commerce and businesses, warn that such a tax could signal to entrepreneurs and investors that Rhode Island is “business unfriendly.” They contend that higher income taxes might discourage business investment and hiring, harming the state’s long-term economic prospects.

Some opponents cite Connecticut’s experience in the early 2010s, when a handful of wealthy taxpayers reportedly relocated after tax hikes, resulting in noticeable revenue loss. Given that a small number of high earners contribute a significant share of state income tax revenue, even limited outmigration could have an outsized fiscal impact, critics argue.

Skeptics also question whether new revenue will be reliably dedicated to education, infrastructure, and social programs. They point out that in the past, even funds placed in restricted accounts were sometimes redirected to fill budget shortfalls.

Aging Programs and Services at a Crossroads

“Rhode Island stands at a crossroads,” warns Carol Anne Costa, Executive Director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island (SACRI). With a projected $220 million deficit and potential federal cuts to programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and services provided by the Office of Healthy Aging, Costa insists that passing HB 5473 and S. 329 is essential to preserve and expand supports for older adults and people with disabilities.

“Most of our state’s older residents are not wealthy,” Costa notes, citing Census data showing that one in four older households earns less than $25,000 annually, and 45% earn less than $50,000. Only about 8% of older households earn more than $200,000.

In FY 2023, 27,535 Rhode Islanders aged 65 and older were enrolled in Medicaid, which funds the majority of long-term services not covered by Medicare. In addition, 14% of older adults in the state relied on SNAP benefits to help cover food costs.

Costa argues that revenue from the proposed surtax could ensure continued funding for these essential programs and expand the Medicare Savings Program. Such an expansion could save low-income seniors and adults with disabilities up to $185 per month in Medicare Part B premiums—money they need for food, housing, and transportation.

While critics warn of wealthy residents fleeing Rhode Island if taxes increase, Costa cites a comprehensive report by the Economic Progress Institute refuting this claim. “In fact, the data suggests the opposite,” she says. “Higher-income tax filers are moving into Rhode Island more than they are leaving.”

Costa also points to Massachusetts as a real-world example. After voters approved a 4% surtax on income over $1 million in 2022, the number of Massachusetts residents with a net worth over $1 million increased from 441,610 to 612,109 by 2024, according to an April report from the Institute for Policy Studies and the State Revenue Alliance.

Business Community Pushes Back

At the House Finance Committee hearing, Laurie White, President of the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce, voiced strong opposition to the proposed tax.

“Our views reflect those of thousands of local businesses statewide,” she said. “Rhode Island is already in fierce competition with neighboring states to attract and retain businesses, residents, and talent.”

White warned that the surtax would send the wrong message, particularly as Rhode Island invests in high-wage sectors like life sciences and technology. “Tax burden is a key factor in business decisions, and an increase in personal income tax would significantly reduce Rhode Island’s appeal,” she stated.

House GOP Minority Leader Michael W. Chippendale (R-Dist. 40, Coventry, Foster, Gloucester) echoed White’s sentiments: “Taxing people who have worked hard and become prosperous is an insult to the American dream. We shouldn’t be punishing success—we should be creating an economic environment where everyone can thrive. Driving away high-income residents with more taxes is backward thinking.”

Chief of Staff Sue Stenhouse confirmed that the entire 10-member House Republican caucus stands united in opposition to the surtax.

The Washington, DC-based Tax Foundation also weighed in. In written testimony on S. 329, Senior Policy & Research Manager Katherine Loughead stated that if the surtax were enacted, Rhode Island would move from having the 14th-highest to the 8th-highest top marginal state income tax rate in the nation—excluding the District of Columbia. She warned that this could make Rhode Island less attractive to high-income earners than even Massachusetts.

So What’s Next?

Costa maintains that taxing the wealthiest residents may be both a necessary and viable solution to protect the state’s safety net amid budget shortfalls and looming federal cuts.

However, with HB 5473 and S. 329 still being held for further study, it remains unclear whether they will be included in the final state budget.

“As we approach the final weeks of the session, there is no shortage of meritorious proposals that affect state resources,” said House Speaker Joseph Shekarchi (D-Dist. 23, Warwick). “The uncertainty of the federal funding picture and the numerous holes in the Governor’s proposed budget complicate both balancing this year’s budget and planning for the unknown. I continue to keep many options on the table for this challenging task.”

Stay tuned—SACRI and other aging advocacy groups are watching closely to see what options will be considered by the House Speaker when he releases FY 2026 state budget to address funding for programs and services that support Rhode Island’s growing older population in this difficult fiscal year.

To read submitted emails and testimony on S. 329, go to https://www.rilegislature.gov/senators/SenateComDocs/Pages/Finance%202025.aspx.

To read written testimony submitted on HB 5473, go to https://www.rilegislature.gov/Special/comdoc/Pages/House%20Finance%202025.aspx.

HHS Shake-Up Sends Shockwaves Through Aging Network

Published on April 31, 2025

Taking a page from President Donald J. Trump’s to “Make America Great Again,” last week the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a major restructuring of the federal agency to “Make America Healthy Again.” The dramatic restructuring in accordance with Trump’s Executive Order, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under management of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., last week announced a major restructuring and renaming of the federal agency under the initiative “Make America Healthy Again.” This dramatic reorganization follows Trump’s Executive Order, Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a statement announcing the massive overhaul. “This Department will do more—much more—at a lower cost to taxpayers.”

“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient, even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Kennedy added. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and those HHS serves. That’s the entire American public, because our goal is to Make America Healthy Again.”

During the Biden administration, HHS’s budget increased by 38%, and its staffing grew by 17%, prompting the new HHS chief to place the federal agency on the budgetary chopping block.

According to HHS, this restructuring will not impact critical services while saving taxpayers $1.8 billion per year through a reduction of approximately 10,000 full-time employees. When combined with other cost-cutting initiatives, including early retirement, and the Fork in the Road program, the total downsizing will reduce HHS’s workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 employees.

HHS also plans to streamline departmental functions. Currently, the agency’s 28 divisions contain redundant units. Under the restructuring plan announced on March 27, 2025, these units will be consolidated into 15 new divisions, including a newly created Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). Additionally, core organizational functions—such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy—will be centralized. The number of regional offices will be cut from 10 to five.

As part of the restructuring, several agencies will see workforce reductions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will cut approximately 3,500 full-time employees, focusing on streamlining operations and centralizing administrative functions, though HHS asserts these reductions will not affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor inspectors.

Similarly, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will downsize by approximately 2,400 employees, refocusing its efforts on epidemic and outbreak response. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will eliminate 1,200 positions by centralizing procurement, human resources, and communications across its 27 institutes and centers. Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will cut around 300 positions, targeting minor duplication within the agency. HHS insists these changes will not impact Medicare or Medicaid services, but improve them.

Restructuring HHS to Focus on Chronic Illness Prevention

HHS’s overhaul aligns with the agency’s new priority of ending America’s chronic illness epidemic by focusing resources on ensuring safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.

The Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) will consolidate five agencies—the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health—into a single entity. This unification aims to enhance health resource coordination for low-income Americans, emphasizing primary care, maternal and child health, mental health, environmental health, HIV/AIDS, and workforce development.

Additionally, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, responsible for national disaster and public health emergency response, will be transferred to the CDC to strengthen its core mission of protecting Americans from health threats.

To combat waste, fraud, and abuse, HHS will create a new Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, overseeing the Departmental Appeals Board, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals, and the Office for Civil Rights.

Furthermore, HHS will merge the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to form the Office of Strategy, enhancing research to inform policy decisions.
Critical programs under the Administration for Community Living (ACL), which supports older adults and people with disabilities, will be integrated into other HHS agencies, including the Administration for Children and Families, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). HHS assures that these changes will not impact Medicare or Medicaid services.

Sounding the Alarm

Following the announcement of HHS’s restructuring plans, which would broad without a lot of detail, aging advocacy groups quickly released statements to voice strong concerns.

“For decades, the federal health programs that retirees and people with disabilities depend on have been ably administered under both Democratic and Republican administrations. However, the radical cutbacks proposed by the Trump administration place the delivery of these programs in jeopardy,” warned Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations & Policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM).

Adcock also noted that HHS plans to eliminate the ALC and divide its responsibilities between two offices with no prior experience in this area. “This administration has already demonstrated a reckless disregard for public interests in favor of slashing operations and staff under the guise of ‘efficiency,’” he added. “So far, all they have done is create chaos and confusion, disrupting essential programs for seniors and the disabled. We view Secretary Kennedy’s plans with alarm.”

Nancy LeaMond, Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer at AARP, also urged HHS to prioritize older Americans’ health needs. “HHS must ensure access to senior centers, community health centers, nutritious meals, Medicare assistance, and other vital services that countless older Americans rely on. Health is central to the lives, well-being, and financial security of AARP’s members and the more than 100 million Americans over age 50,” she emphasized.

Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, President of the John A. Hartford Foundation, echoed these concerns. “The announcement of workforce cuts at HHS comes at a time of unprecedented growth in America’s aging population. The proposed reorganization of ACL and its integration into other agencies requires careful consideration.”

Fulmer stressed that ACL administers programs essential to older adults’ daily lives, such as meal delivery, transportation to medical appointments, and chronic disease management. Absorbing these functions with far fewer staff demands careful planning. The government’s commitment to older adults requires a cautious approach, she said.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy also expressed deep concerns, particularly regarding plans to restructure ACL and consolidate oversight of Medicare appeals. “Given what we have seen with Social Security Administration cuts and restructuring, HHS’s claim that these changes won’t impact critical services rings hollow,” said Co-Director David Lipschutz.

LeadingAge, a national association representing nonprofit aging services providers, called for HHS to ensure older adults and their caregivers are not overlooked. “Cutting staff responsible for critical agency functions raises serious concerns. How will the work our members rely on get done? How will this impact quality care for older adults?” asked President and CEO Katie Smith Sloan.

Sloan also cautioned that reducing HHS’s field offices from 10 to five could impact CMS’s ability to oversee nursing home surveys and provider compliance. “A 25% workforce reduction must be undertaken with extreme care—especially given the millions of older adults who depend on these services,” she emphasized.

For a fact sheet on the HHS restructuring, visit https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/hhs-restructuring-doge-fact-sheet.html