Tag Archives for Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Trump’s Campaign Pledges Could impact Social Security’s Financial Stability

Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on November 4, 2024

When voters go to the polls on Tuesday, they should know that Social Security will only be nine years away from insolvency when the next President takes office.  According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the law calls for a 23 percent cut in Social Security reductions in fiscal year 2034.  Restoring solvency in the retirement program over the next 75 years would require the equivalent of reducing all future benefits by 24 percent or increasing revenue by 35 percent, says CBO.

As the presidential campaign winds down, with voting taking place on Nov. 4, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris calls for protecting and expanding Social Security while former President Trump says would “fight for and protect Social Security.” But both candidates don’t provide a specific detail plan as to how to  fix the financially ailing Social Security program, despite the looming $16,500 cut facing a typical couple retiring just before the projected insolvency.

But campaign promises, if enacted, can have a devastating impact on the Social Security Programs ability to pay all future benefits.

Analysis Shows Campaign Promises Weaken Social Security

A new report, “What Would the Trump Campaign’s Mean for Social Security,” released by US Budget Watch 2024, a project the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), details how former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, if enacted, would advance Social Security’s insolvency by three years, from FY 2034 to FY 2031 – hastening the next President’s insolvency timeline by one-third.  CRFB is a non-partisan government watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. that analyses the fiscal impact of federal budget and fiscal issues.

According to CRFB’s new report, released on Oct. 21, 2024, Trump campaign pledges  would weaken Social Security’s financial stability by ending taxation of Social Security benefits. This would eliminate a revenue stream currently used to help finance Social Security. If enacted, the analysis notes that Trump’s plans would increase Social Security’s ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through FY 2035. Additionally, ending all taxes on overtime pay and tips, would also reduce the payroll taxes accruing to the Social Security trust funds.

CRFB’s analysis also predicted that Trump’s policies would worsen Social Security’s finances by increasing Social Security’s annual shortfall by roughly 50 percentin FY 2035, from 3.6 to 4 percent of payroll.

Trump’s calls for large tariffs on imports, which would either increase cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) through higher inflation or reduce taxable payroll would impact the financial viability of the Social Security program.  Enhancing boarder security and deporting unauthorized immigrants would reduce the number of immigrant workers paying into the Social Security Trust funds.

CRFB also questions whether Trump’s fixes would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfalls.

From the Sideline…

According to Aimee Picchi is associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, the personal finance website received a statement from Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt disputing the CRFB analysis: “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” she said.

Additionally,  Leavitt told CBS  Money Watch that Trump’s plans for “unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies” would put Social Security “on a stronger footing for generations to come.”

“President Trump has said he would close Social Security’s long-term shortfall by increasing drilling for oil and natural gas and by growing the economy. However, we’ve shown that increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security – even if the gains were deposited into the trust fund. We’ve also shown that it would require unrealistically fast economic growth to close Social Security’s existing long-term funding gap,” says CRFB’s analysis. .

“Faster growth can reduce Social Security’s shortfall [says Trump]. But based on available analyses and understanding the effects of President Trump’s agenda on the national debt, it is unlikely his plans would significantly boost the size of the economy, and many estimates find his plans would reduce long-term out-put long-term output,” adds CRFB.

Responding to CRFB’s analysis, in a statement Harris-Walz 2024 spokesperson Joseph Costello said: “Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail. 

Expand Social Security Caucus House Co-Chairs Reps. John B. Larso (D -CT), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and Debbie Dingell (D – MI) )call Trump’s campaign pledges “a no starter.”  If implemented, they would eliminate revenue streams used to help finance Social Security and accelerate the depletion of Social Security funding,” they say.

“Maintaining the solvency of Social Security is vital for promoting economic security, and a moral obligation to honor the commitments made to those who have contributed to the system throughout their working lives. To safeguard the future of Social Security, we cannot allow for Trump’s policies to gut these hard-earned benefits and instead must engage in a simple reform like the Social Security 2100 Act that fixes insolvency by having the wealthy pay into the system the same as everyone else,” note the Co-Chairs.

And Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, gives his thought’s to Trump’s campaign pledges: “We oppose his proposal to eliminate the taxes on benefits that help to fund the system, and any other measure that would deprive Social Security of much needed revenue,” he says.

“Once again, Trump postures as a friend of the working class, then puts forward plans that endanger the benefits working people have earned — and depend on in retirement. It is irresponsible for a presidential candidate to advocate plans that would hasten the depletion of the Social Security trust fund reserves, triggering an even larger automatic benefit cut if that happens,” adds Richtman.

According to Richtman, Trump’s plans reveal his “overall recklessness” with Social Security. “He suspended the payroll tax that funds the program during Covid — and hoped it would be eliminated.  His White House budgets would have slashed Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by billions of dollars.  He said earlier this year that he was ‘open’ to ‘cutting entitlements,’ then tried to walk it back. He once called Social Security a ‘Ponzi Scheme,” he adds.

“Time and again, Trump has chosen political expediency without considering – or caring about – the consequences. Despite his posturing, Donald Trump is no friend to Social Security or American seniors,” charges Richtman.

Looking Back on Efforts to Fix Social Security

“The history and reasoning in both Congress and the White House on protecting Social Security is still important and persuasive– as it was to President Obama, and House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid,” says Robert Weiner, former chief of Staff of the House Aging Committee and later a  White House senior staffer

“The great Claude Pepper helped forge the Reagan-O’Neill-Pepper deal of 1983 that stopped cuts and even partial insolvency through 2034,” says Weiner, noting that he remembers Pepper saying “over my dead body” to cabinet officers and congressional leaders who wanted to impose severe cuts. 

Weiner noted that Nancy Pelosi said  “First, do no harm” to the would-be cutters right through all the years of her Speakership and leadership. “’We did that’ to stopping the Social Security cutters, she told Weiner. 

Senate Leader Harry Reid’s staff removed the term ‘reform’ from his Social Security talking points when they were given the documents and realized that the program has a surplus, not a deficit,” noted Weiner. “These great leaders knew that Social Security ‘reform’ meant cuts, breaking Social Security’s promise to American seniors, and that the deficit was a myth and excuse to take from the program and its two-trillion-plus dollar surplus,” he said. 

“And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told me that congressional leaders knew that, if necessary, if the time comes, and it’s not now, a slight tweak by Congress to raise the income level for tax payments could fix it, if necessary, if the growing economy hadn’t already maintained full solvency,” says Weiner.

“Let’s hope this kind of sanity and sensitivity continues to prevail,” Weiner concludes.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security

Cicilline Spearheading key comeback?

Rep. Wants to Reestablish House Select Committee on Aging

Published in Woonsocket Call on December 20, 2015

Four years after the Rep. Claude Pepper, (D-Florida) died in 1989, the former Chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging, would be turning in his grave with the elimination of his beloved Aging Panel three other House Select Committees in 1993.  Serving as its chair for six years, the nation’s most visible spokesperson for the elderly, put the spotlight on aging issues in his chamber.

In 1973, the House Select Committee on Aging was authorized by a House whopping vote of 323 to 84.  While in lacked the authority to introduce legislation (although its members often did so in their standing committees), the House Aging panel begin to conduct comprehensive studies on specific aging issues to identify issues, problems and trends.  It was not limited by narrow jurisdictional boundaries of the standing committees but looked broadly at the targeted aging issue.

Congressional belt-tightening to match President Clinton’s White House staff cuts and efforts to streamline its operations would seal the fate of the House Select Committee on Aging. House lawmakers supporting the elimination of the House Aging panel viewed its $1.5 million a waste because 12 standing committees had jurisdiction over aging issues. Those opposed to putting the House Select Committee on Aging on the chopping block to rein in Congressional spending charged that the standing committees staff did not have time broadly investigate issues of the nation’s seniors as this select committee did..

Even with the mobilization and lobbying efforts of a coalition of aging groups including AARP, National Council on Aging, National Council of Senior Citizens, and Older Woman’s League to save the House Select Committee on Aging, House leadership ultimately chose to “put the nails in the coffin.”  No vote was scheduled to continue its existence on March 31, 1993 when its authorization automatically expired.

But did the House Select Committee on Aging really have an impact on the development of aging policy crafted by Congress as its supporters contend?   In 1993, with the demise of this select committee staff, writer Rebecca H. Patterson reported on March 31, 1993 in the St. Petersberg Times (p.8A)that Staff Director Brian Lutz noted that during its 18 years, the House Aging panel “has been responsible for about 1,000 hearings and reports.” This writer believes that the House Select Committee on Aging’s advocacy role prodded Congress to act abolishing forced retirement, investigating nursing homes, monitoring breast screening for older woman, improving elderly housing and putting the spotlight on elder abuse and the issues nation’s caregivers face when caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s Disease.

Bringing the Aging Panel Back from the Ashes

After the disbandment of the House Select Committee on Aging in 1993, a brief effort was undertaken by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) when she became House Speaker to bring back the Aging panel but this attempt was not successful.  Last month, Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-Rhode Island), representing the State’s First Congressional District, urged newly elected GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan in November 6th  correspondence to bring back the Aging Panel to the House Chamber.  There were 63 cosigners out of 435 lawmakers, all of them democrats, says the Democratic Lawmaker, who noted that many who did not sign wanted “additional time to review the proposal with their staff.”

It was extremely obvious to Cicilline and his cosigners as to the House Aging panel’s importance to today’s Congress.  “The considerable challenges that face our nation’s seniors, including Social Security and Medicare solvency, the rising cost of prescription drugs, poverty, housing issues, and location term care and other important issues, deserve dedicated attention from lawmakers, said Cicilline in his correspondence to Ryan and House GOP leadership.

Furthermore, Cicilline stressed the select committees relevant today as America’s baby boomers face the struggles of growing old.  “The addition of this demographic to the senior population will require thoughtful policy development and a focused effort to meet the many challenges by the increasing senior population”. He added that “Strains on resources for America’s seniors not only impact the elderly, but also those who support them, including family and professionals who provide care to seniors.”

A Quick Legislative Process

Cicilline notes that the House can readily create a temporary ad hoc select committee by approving a simple resolution that contains language establishing the committee – giving purpose, defining members and detailing other issues that need to be addressed. All standing and select committees of the House (except Appropriations) are authorized by a House resolution, and funding is then provided through appropriations, he adds.  “If the Speaker is supportive of the initiative, we would like draft and introduce a House Resolution establishing the committee, says Cicilline.

Robert Blancato, the longest serving staff member on the House Select Committee on aging, knows that the cost issue may be brought up to derail Cicilline’s efforts to reestablish the House Aging panel in 2016.  “There are certainly costs involved but an effective committee can be operated with a reasonable budget,” he says.  Now with Matz, Blancato and Associates, a strategic consulting and public relations firm, he is firmly behind Cicilline’s efforts.

“The aging population and its issues from chronic care to care giving have grown dramatically since the end of the House Select Committee on Aging in 1993.  No [Congressional] committees and defined Congressional champion has emerged since that time.  A new Aging panel would be very relevant for the future,” notes Blancato.

As an eye-witness to the legislative activities of the Aging panel for 17, Blancato’s keen political observations must be heard by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  The House Select Committee on Aging, with its bipartisan approach to crafting sound aging policy, is sorely needed now with a House divided and “compromise” being touted by some in the chamber as a “dirty word.” By bring this select committee back to life, House lawmakers can send a powerful symbolic message that they are ready to roll up their sleeves and tackle issues of concern to the nation’s seniors. Cicilline along with his letter’s cosigners calling for bringing by the Aging panel are definitely on the right track.