Tag Archives for President Donald Trump

House Lawmakers Must Not View Aging as a Partisan Issue

Published in RINewsToday on March 30, 2026

The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), representing 69 national groups dedicated to the well-being of seniors, is urging Congress to support H. Res. 1013, a bipartisan resolution introduced by Reps. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) and Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), which would reestablish the Permanent House Select Committee on Aging (HSCoA). Reestablishing this  committee strengthens House congressional oversight, crucial for meeting the needs of a growing older population.

The original HSCoA served as the House’s investigative panel to spotlight aging issues until 1993, when it was dismantled at the end of the 102nd Congress as part of a budget reduction that cut $1.5 million in funding. From 1974 to 1993, the committee fostered bipartisan collaboration to address a myriad of issues affecting older Americans, expanding its membership from 35 to 65 as its political influence grew.  While the House allowed its committee to expire over 30 years ago, the U.S. Senate continues to operate a Special Committee on Aging.

Today’s aging policy challenges now demand bipartisan solutions and comprehensive, coordinated action. The reestablishment of the HSCoA is a necessary, nonpartisan step to addressing these urgent policy needs.

Working Closely with Standing Committees

“Jurisdiction over many programs affecting seniors is spread across multiple standing committees, making it difficult to fully address problems that do not fit neatly into one category,” said Max Richtman, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and chair of LCAO. “The nation faces intergenerational challenges, including increasing strain on family caregivers and a persistent retirement security crisis, which demand forward-looking solutions. A select committee with broad jurisdiction is uniquely positioned to address these issues.”

In a March 16 LCAO endorsement letter, Richtman emphasized that a reestablished committee would be active and engaged—holding field hearings, convening teleconferences, and incorporating community perspectives directly into policymaking.

Support from LCAO’s member organizations underscores that the passage of H. Res. 1013 is a national priority, not a narrow concern. As Richtman noted, the nation’s largest aging coalition is calling for the immediate reinstatement of the House Aging Committee.

Reestablishing the committee would also restore balance to Congress’s approach to aging policy, notes LCAO’s endorsement letter. In recent years, the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging has played a vital bipartisan role in highlighting issues such as elder abuse, scams and fraud, high prescription drug costs, the impact of COVID-19, financial pressures on retirees, and the growing crisis of social isolation. The House lacks a comparable legislative panel—an absence that becomes more significant as the population continues to age.

Without a dedicated body to examine the full scope of aging policy, critical issues risk fragmentation, oversight gaps, and delays. In the past, HSCoA hearings provided a forum for bipartisan debate and dialogue, helping bridge philosophical political divides and enabling standing committees to advance informed legislative solutions.

On January 21, 2026, lawmakers introduced H. Res. 1013 and referred it to the House Rules Committee. As of this writing, the resolution remains in committee, awaiting hearings, markup, or a floor vote.

“It is too hard to be a senior in the United States, and Congress has a responsibility to do more for today’s growing population of older Americans and future generations,” said Rep. Magaziner, the bill’s primary sponsor. “Reestablishing the Select Committee on Aging would create a dedicated forum to address these challenges and help ensure Americans can retire with dignity.”

“America’s seniors built this country, and they deserve more than gratitude—they deserve action,” added Rep. Salazar, an original cosponsor. “From rising health care costs to housing and long-term care, their challenges are too important to be buried in bureaucracy. This committee would provide focus, coordination, and accountability, and deliver meaningful solutions so seniors can live with security and purpose.”

As a cosponsor, Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI) supports bringing back the HSCoA.  “With rising costs, threats to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and scams targeting older Rhode Islanders, it is essential that we deliver real solutions for America’s seniors,” says Amo.

As Co-Chair of the Stop Scams Caucus, Rep. Amo introduced the STOP Scams Against Seniors Act to ensure investigators have the resources needed to protect seniors from losing their life savings and to help them retire with dignity. “I supported reestablishing this committee in the 118th Congress, and I remain committed to elevating the voices of seniors in the legislative process,” he says.

Can a Bipartisan Proposal Pass in a Divided House?

“AARP supports exploring the restoration of a House Aging Committee to help encourage bipartisan dialogue and elevate issues important to older adults,” said Debra Whitman, AARP’s chief public policy officer.

AARP Board Member Bob Blancato, former staff director of the House Subcommittee on Human Services, highlighted the strategic importance of AARP’s backing. “AARP’s support gives bipartisan weight to the resolution and can motivate lawmakers across the aisle to consider it,” he said.

Blancato called restoring the committee a “sound policy decision,” noting that the growth of the older population makes action urgent. “The sheer increase in the number of older adults since 1993 is reason enough,” he said, pointing out that the oldest baby boomers are now turning 80. “President Donald Trump, the oldest sitting president in U.S. history, turns 80 on June 14, 2026,” he added.

He also noted that a single vote in 1993 eliminated HSCoA and several other committees as part of an effort led by House Democratic leadership to reduce government spending. Blancato suggested the resolution could pass in today’s Republican-controlled House if lawmakers see it as politically advantageous, adding that Rep. Salazar, a Republican, could play a key role in building support.

Still, Blancato acknowledged uncertainty about how effective a modern version of the committee might be. “It’s a dicey question—it depends on the issues they take on,” he said. However, he emphasized that a reestablished committee could play a crucial role by holding hearings on Social Security reform proposals from both parties.

Rep. Magaziner’s effort to secure a Republican cosponsor reflects the kind of thoughtful, collaborative leadership our country needs—especially as America’s older adult population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, says aging advocate Vincent Marzullo, a former federal civil rights and social justice administrator. “By working across party lines, he is helping to refocus national attention on a myriad of pressing challenges facing older Americans,” he says.

“Rep. Magaziner’s bipartisan initiative also underscores a shared commitment to dignity, respect, and opportunity for seniors, adds Marzullo, who serves on the Congressman’s senior advisory council, calling a bipartisan approach a constructive path to addressing the needs of aging communities nationwide.

Robert Weiner, former chief of staff of the HSCoA under the late Chairman Claude Pepper (D-FL), now director of an ongoing op-ed writing group recruiting young journalists, which won the National Press Club President’s Award, noted that similar resolutions have been introduced in six previous congressional sessions. He said bipartisan support—including from Rep. Salazar, a member of the House Problem Solvers Caucus—could improve the resolution’s chances for passage.

However, Weiner argued that attracting Republican cosponsors should not be difficult. “Historically, Republicans have received strong support from older voters,” he said. “Bipartisan sponsorship should help overcome partisan resistance,” he believes.

Given that Rep. Salazar is a Republican member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, Weiner agrees that it is now time to urge the Problem Solvers Caucus to endorse and become cosponsors of H. Res. 1013. “The Aging Committee has always been bipartisan, with House leaders including not only Pepper and  Ed Roybal (D-CA)as chairs, but supportive ranking minority members, including then House members — later Senators — Charles Grassley (R-IA), William Cohen (R-ME), and John Heinz (R-PA),” notes Weiner. He added that the passage could depend on political timing. “It can and should be a shared victory,” Weiner said. “If not this year, then next year.”

A Call for Support

It is time for the Tallahassee, Florida–based Claude Pepper Foundation to step forward and formally endorse H. Res. 1013. The Foundation’s mission—to advance the ideas, values, and public policy legacy of the late Sen. Pepper, ensuring they remain part of contemporary American discourse—aligns directly with the purpose of this bipartisan resolution.

At its core, the Foundation educates federal and state policymakers and advocates for initiatives that enhance the quality of life for all Americans. H. Res. 1013 embodies that commitment. Endorsing this measure would not only honor Sen. Pepper’s legacy but also reinforce the Foundation’s leadership in shaping policies that address the needs of a growing aging population.

The bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, established in January 2017 as an outgrowth of the No Labels organization, was created to foster cooperation across party lines on key policy issues. Nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, the caucus has demonstrated that consensus-driven policymaking is both possible and necessary.

During the 119th Congress, the Problem Solvers Caucus endorsed 12 legislative proposals. Notably, however, none directly addressed aging programs or services. As an original cosponsor of H. Res. 1013, Rep. Salazar is well-positioned to urge the caucus’s co-chairs—Representatives Brian K. Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY)—along with their colleagues, to make this resolution their 13th endorsed proposal.

Addressing the needs of older Americans should never be viewed as a partisan issue. Reestablishing the House Select Committee on Aging is a practical, bipartisan step that lawmakers from both parties can and should strongly support.

Restoring the committee is essential—not only to revive a once-vital congressional institution, but also to ensure that today’s Congress is now equipped to meet the evolving needs of the nation’s rapidly aging population.

LCAO member organizations endorsing H. Res. 1013 include AARP, Justice in Aging, CWI Works, Inc., Alzheimer’s Association, Village to Village Network, Gerontological Society of America, Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies, Meals on Wheels America, International Association for Indigenous Aging, APWU, Retirees Department, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), PHI, LeadingAge, Aging Life Care Association, National Adult Day Services Association (NADSA), Post Acute and Long Term Care Medical Association, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA), National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), National Council on Aging, USAging, Mairead Painter, CT State Long Term Care Ombudsman,  National Adult Protective Services; and National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP), among others.

Read the full resolution here https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/1013/text

Rep. Magaziner’s one-minute floor statement calling for the passage of H. Res. 1013 – see it here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IygZGcwnFPg&si=MLAAdY6QctiXd1TF

To read LCAO’s endorsement of H. Res. 1013, go to https://www.lcao.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/LCAO-Chairs-Letter-Endorsing-H.-Res.-1013.pdf.

Seeing Echoes of 1938 in Trump Administration

Published in Providence Journal on Oct. 18, 2025

As the nation-wide “No Kings” protest looms, I write with urgency and deep concern about the growing threats to America’s democratic institutions. At this point, expressions of worry are not enough to stop our 259-year-old democratic republic from drifting toward authoritarian rule. We see attacks on voting rights, efforts to weaken the independence of the courts, court rulings being ignored, and attempts to discredit the press—warning signs that cannot be brushed aside. Finally, we will see bold, visible action take place on Oct. 18th, with protests taking place in over 1,650 communities across all the United States, the District of Columbia and International. 

It was reported that the previous “No Kings” protest in June attracted about 5 million participants. Some say that this number could double, mobilizing up to 10 million people to participate. Elected officials – at local state and federal levels should join the protest in their local communities.

During an 80-minute press event in the Oval Office to announce the federal government’s tighter control of law enforcement inside the Beltway, President Donald Trump startled many Americans with a comment suggesting that perhaps the country might “like a dictator” in the White House. He quickly added that he was not a dictator, but rather a man of “great common sense.” 

Despite Trumps denials, his actions and the tone of his speeches and social media posts stroke division in ways that resemble the stages of the Nazi’s autocratic takeover of Germany.  It’s hard to believe his denials with his behavior of undermining democratic institutions that he claims to defend.

Still, the idiom “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” comes to mind. Americans should be forewarned.

Trumps sending the National Guard into Democratic cities, without the consent of state governors, who oppose his policies, clearly is a sign of autocratic behavior.  Governors and federal and state lawmakers in these states call these actions political over reach and the weaponization of the Justice Department.

History reminds us of the danger of hesitation. In the late 1930s, as the Nazi regime consolidated power, by taking control of the Reichstag (the German parliament) and enacting legislation that significantly undermined democratic processes.  

At that time too many German leaders just stood by.  Their silence fueled violence and oppression and allowed it to grow unchecked. That tragic failure shows the cost of waiting until it is too late.

Does this not sound familiar today?

I often wonder what I would have done during Kristallnacht—the “Night of Broken Glass” in November 1938—when mobs attacked Jewish homes, synagogues, and businesses even desecrating cemeteries. Would I have stepped forward to protect my neighbor or even attempt to stop the destruction? The horror of that night was enabled not only by the Brown Shirts or SA (Sturmagteilung), SS (Schutzstaffel), local police, and ordinary German citizens who carried out the rampage but also by the many who just looked away in the face of destruction.

Today we see disturbing echoes: immigrants packed into detention centers, families torn apart, and even U.S. citizens taken by masked ICE agents without warrants. These actions weaken our nation’s constitutional protections and send a chilling message that no one’s rights are secure. Such practices do not belong in a free society and push us closer to authoritarian control.

Eighty years later, I have the opportunity to raise my voice, to sound the alarm, to draw the similarities between then and now. The responsibility to resist does not rest solely on the shoulders of elected officials, but also with citizens who can no longer remain silent. This is our time to defend our constitutional democracy with courage and clarity. Future generations will remember whether we stood firm—or stood by and watched.

 Albert Einstein so aptly observed: “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”

The millions of Americans participating in the “No Kings” protest have united to resist authoritarianism and defend our democracy. Will you join this movement, or will you remain silent.

Social Security is in Crisis: We Must Resist Efforts to Change It

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on August 19, 2025

Security will mark its 90th anniversary. On that date in 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the landmark program into law as a safeguard against the “hazards and vicissitudes” of life.

“For a federal program to endure for 90 years and maintain an extremely high level of popularity among the American people is truly extraordinary,” says the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM). “It is an achievement that should be celebrated far and wide.”

Yet this milestone comes amid growing political controversy that could shape the program’s future.

Privatization Concerns Emerge

Just 15 days before the anniversary, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made remarks that sent shockwaves through the aging advocacy community. Speaking at a Breitbart News–sponsored event, Bessent described President Trump’s newly enacted “Trump accounts” (also referred to as “Child Savings Accounts” or “Child IRAs”) as potentially serving as a “backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” His comments, made during a Breitbart policy panel on the evening of July 30, were quickly picked up by national media outlets.

Bessent elaborated: “If these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer too.” He suggested that the success and expansion of these individual retirement accounts—created under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act—could eventually reduce Americans’ reliance on traditional Social Security benefits.

The law, signed by Trump on July 4, creates a new tax-deferred investment account for children under the age of 18, born in the U.S. between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028. These accounts are seeded with $1,000 in federal funds and allow additional contributions of up to $5,000 annually from parents, family members, or employers. Structured similarly to IRAs, the funds must be invested in low-cost mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track a U.S. stock index.

Max Richtman, NCPSSM President and CEO, quickly issued a public response, calling on Trump to denounce Bessent’s suggestion of a “backdoor” to privatization. “President George W. Bush tried it after his re-election in 2004—and failed miserably. The American people didn’t buy it then, and they won’t buy it now,” Richtman said.

He urged the former president to issue a clear and unequivocal statement: “Make a clear, unequivocal statement (as only you can) that your administration will not try to privatize Social Security.”

John Hishta, Senior Vice President of Campaigns at AARP, also issued a statement and condemned Bessent’s comments. “We have fought any and all efforts to privatize Social Security, and we will continue to,” he said. “President Trump has emphasized many times that Social Security ‘won’t be touched,’ and that he is ‘not going to touch Social Security.’ This must include any and all forms of privatization.”

“Privatization is a terrible idea”, says Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works in a statement, noting that unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can’t outlive. “It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street’s hands off our Social Security!,” she says.

Following the backlash, Bessent attempted to clarify his remarks in a post on X (formerly Twitter) the next day: “Trump Baby Accounts are an additive benefit for future generations, which will supplement the sanctity of Social Security’s guaranteed payments. This is not an either-or question. Our administration is committed to protecting Social Security and making sure seniors have more money.”

During her Thursday press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that President Trump remains “wholeheartedly committed” to protecting Social Security—even as Bessent’s earlier comments appeared to contradict that position. “What the Secretary of the Treasury was saying—and what this administration believes—is that these Trump newborn accounts, which are an incredibly creative and positive provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill, are meant to help supplement, not substitute, Social Security,” Leavitt told reporters.

Democrats and Advocacy Groups Push Back

Last Thursday, amid hundreds of events scheduled this month throughout the nation to celebrate SSA’s 90th anniversary, the Washington, D.C.–based Social Security Works hosted a press conference to warn against what they called Trump administration efforts to undermine and dismantle Social Security.

Moderator Nancy Altman, President of SSW, opened the Town Hall by emphasizing the importance of celebrating Social Security’s milestone anniversary and the need to protect and defend the program. Throughout the event, Altman introduced each speaker, describing them as champions dedicated to safeguarding Social Security.

Speakers cited administrative actions such as firing 7,000 employees, closing field offices, and creating a customer service crisis. During the 37-minute press event, prominent Democrats and leaders of progressive advocacy groups argued these steps were part of a deliberate strategy to erode public confidence and justify future benefit cuts or privatization.

They contrasted these actions with proposals to expand benefits and extend the program’s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont), described as a leading champion of earned benefits and author of the Social Security Expansion Act, called Social Security “the most successful federal government program of all time.” This was said to counter claims by critics, like Elon Musk, who have called it a “Ponzi scheme.” Sanders added: “This is a huge fight. We have the American people behind us. Let’s win it.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee and a key figure in the Senate’s “Social Security War Room,” said: “Trump’s so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance.”

Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut), Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, urged Congress to expand benefits. He noted that the last major expansion was under President Nixon and that millions of seniors still live in or near poverty.

Former Social Security Commissioner under President Biden, Martin O’Malley, charged, “They’re trying to wreck its customer service so they can turn enough Americans against it—and ultimately get away with robbing it.” He described this as the strategic motivation behind what he called the Trump administration’s dismantling of the SSA’s operational capacity.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan), who helped organize the Expand Social Security Caucus and has deep family ties to the creation of both Social Security and Medicare, declared: “I’ll be damned if anybody’s going to take us back to those days,” recalling the poverty and desperation seniors faced before the program’s enactment.

Judith Brown, a Social Security beneficiary, gave personal testimony underscoring the critical role her monthly check plays in her financial survival.

Keisha Bras, Director of Opportunity, Race, and Justice for the NAACP; Molly Weston Williamson, a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund and an expert on paid leave; and Sarah Francis of Unrig Our Economy rounded out the panel.

A Legacy Under Threat

NCPSSM President Max Richtman warns that while the anniversary is cause for celebration, “we must always defend the program from those who would privatize or outright eliminate it. These forces have been at work ever since Social Security was enacted.”

To educate the public and counter misinformation, NCPSSM has produced a new documentary, Social Security: 90 Years Strong, with funding from AARP. The film tells the story of the program’s creation during the Great Depression and its enduring role for seniors, people with disabilities, and their families.

The documentary features interviews with Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, Nancy Altman (Social Security Works), Bill Arnone (formerly of the National Academy of Social Insurance), FDR’s grandson Jim Roosevelt, Tracey Gronniger (Justice in Aging), Kathryn Edwards (Labor Economist), and Giovanna Gray Lockhart (former Director, Frances Perkins Center).

Social Security is often called the “third rail” of American politics—a metaphor drawn from the high-voltage rail powering some trains, where contact can be fatal. In politics, “stepping on the third rail” can mean political death.

“More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America ages, we expect at least 13 million more people to rely on it by 2035.” said Myechia Minter-Jordan, Chief Executive Officer at AARP in s July 21 statement announcing the results of a new SSA survey. “For 90 years, Social Security has never missed a payment, and Americans should have confidence that it never will,” she said. 

The survey findings indicate that nearly two in three (65%) retired Americans say they rely substantially on Social Security, while another 21 percent say they rely on it somewhat. In 2020, 63% of retired Americans said they relied substantially on Social Security, jumping from 58% in both 2015 and 2010.

Social Security has strong bipartisan support, too.  The survey found that that more than two-thirds of Americans (67%) believe Social Security is more important to retirees today than it was five years ago. Overall, 96% consider the program important, with broad bipartisan agreement: 98% of Democrats, 95% of Republicans, and 93% of Independents.

The Social Security Trustees’ 2025 annual report, released in June, projects the program’s trust funds will run short of money by 2034. Without action, beneficiaries could face an estimated 19% cut in monthly payments.

Whether lawmakers who support privatization —while keeping their voter base—if they “step on the third rail” by raising the full retirement age or refusing to raise taxes remains to be seen.

We’ll see.