Tag Archives for Senate Finance Committee

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.

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.

Bipartisan support needed to re-establish House Aging Committee

Published in RINewsToday on May 6, 2024

It was almost like attending a 34th high school reunion.  After over three decades, an on-line meeting on April 25th, would bring five former senior staffers of the House Select Committee on Aging (HSCoA) and House Rules Committee back together to provide firsthand accounts to Maia Leeds, legislative assistant for Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), as to why the New Jersey Congressman, co-chair of the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus, should call on the caucus to endorse H. Res. 1029, re-establishing the House Select Committee on Aging. 

Washington, DC-based groups, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), Social Security Works and the Alliance for Retired Americans, including this writer, along with key staff of Congressman Seth Magaziner (D-RI), the primary sponsor of the resolution, participated in the discussion of how the Rhode Island Congressman could attract more cosponsors, especially House Republican lawmakers.   

Throughout the half-hour meeting, Leeds and others stressed the importance of recruiting Republican lawmakers, calling for bipartisan support of H. Res. 1029. According to “Votes in Congress” published in the New York Times on Oct. 13, 1974, even with the Democrats controlling the House in 1974, the HSCoA was established by a huge bipartisan vote of 299 to 74.  In 1993, House Democratic belt-tightening efforts to save $ 1.5 million funding the operations of HSCoA would force it to close its door.

The House Aging Committee was not charged with drafting legislation. Its mission was to conduct investigations and hold hearings to put the spotlight on aging issues that would ultimately lead standing committees with aging jurisdiction to craft legislation to address these issues. 

From the 114th Congress, until he retired during the 117th Congress, in each Congressional session, former Congressman David Cicilline had introduced a resolution to bring back the HSCoA. The resolution failed to gain traction and get support from either House Republic Leader Paul Ryan or House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Magaziner would ultimately pick up the baton and introduce H. Res. 1029, on Feb. 23, 2024. This resolution was referred to the House Committee on Rules for mark-up, and if passed will be considered by the full House. At press time, there are only 26 Democratic cosponsors, with no Republican cosponsors.

Simply Put…

Magaziner’s 213-word resolution simply amends the Rules of the House to establish a HSCoA, without legislative jurisdiction, to conduct a continuing comprehensive study and review an array of aging issues, including income maintenance, poverty, housing, health (including medical research), welfare, employment, education, and long-term care.

H. Res. 1029 also calls for the reestablished HSCoA to study ways that would encourage the development of public and private sector programs and policies that would keep older Americans active in their community.   

The resolution would also allow the HSCoA to develop policies that would encourage the coordination of both government and private programs designed to deal with problems of aging -and to review any recommendations made by the President or White House Conference on Aging in relations to programs and policies impacting seniors.

According to EveryCRS Report, the House can easily establish an ad hoc (temporary) select committee just by approving a simple resolution with no Senate or Presidential approval. It contains language establishing the committee, detailing a purpose, defining membership. Salaries and expenses of standing committees, special and select, are authorized through the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.

Magaziner, currently out on parental leave, couldn’t make the online meeting, but Chief of Staff Clayton Schroers, and Kyra Whitelaw, Legislative Assistant, came to monitor the gathering to gain insight from former staffers of HSCoA’s impact on the development of aging policy.

According to Magaziner, his staff are working hard to speak to other congressional offices about the benefits of the proposed committee and who will continue to work to raise the profile of this resolution to encourage other members to become cosponsors. “I was grateful for the opportunity to present to the Leadership Council on Aging, a national coalition of national nonprofit organizations that works on policy issues related to the well-being of America’s seniors,” says Magaziner, noting that his resolution has the support of the NCPSSM and Meals on Wheels America.”

As Magaziner works to increase the number of cosponsors for H. Res. 1029, he says: “The support of advocates is important to encouraging Congressional representatives to cosponsor this resolution.”

“I’m ready to work with anyone, from either party, to deliver results for Rhode Island—and that includes finding common ground on important legislation like H. Res. 1029,” says Magaziner. “I believe there’s still room for bipartisanship, and ensuring we address issues for seniors across the country should be an area where we can all agree. I will continue to urge my Republican colleagues to work together with Democrats to move our country forward,” he says.

Former Congressional staffers call for passage of H. Res. 1029

“A House Aging Committee would centralize Congress’s consideration of older American issues and could be of assistance to authorizing committees with legislative jurisdiction over agencies and programs important to seniors,” says Max Richtman, NCPSSM’s President and CEO, explaining why NCPSSM will directly encourage House members to cosponsor H. Res. 1029.  

According to Richtman, a 16-year veteran of Capitol Hill, the pros outweigh the cons on supporting Magaziner’s resolution. A House Aging Committee would centralize Congress’s consideration of older American issues and could be of assistance to authorizing committees with legislative jurisdiction over agencies and programs important to seniors. However, it would take staff and clerk hire (money) away from the authorizing committees.

Like Magaziner, Richtman observes that bipartisan support for programs and agencies important to senior has a mixed record. “There is some bipartisan agreement on the Older Americans Act (OAA). But even on OAA, bipartisan action can vary widely, says Richtman, especially when Republicans want to make across the board cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, including OAA, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance  Program. “And there appears to be no bipartisan agreement on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” he says.

Richtman, a former Staff Director of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, says that the upper chamber sees the value of the Senate Aging Committee, noting that he believes that it has operated in a bipartisan manner. 

Bob Blancato, former Executive Director of the 1995 White House Conference on Aging and former Staff Director, Subcommittee on Housing & Consumer Interests, from 1978-93, has joined the efforts to pass H. Res. 1029. “I just wanted to add another voice in favor of this resolution,” says Blancato, President of Matz, Blancato and Associates.

According to Blancato, who served as Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Human Services from 1977 to 1991, important policies were addressed over those years.  Several amendments to the Older Americans Act were adopting, including creating a separate program for home delivered meals. He remembers his subcommittee held the first hearing ever on the issue of grandparent visitation rights.  

Although some standing committee chairs felt THE aging committee made them work harder because of issues raised in their legislative jurisdictions, there were many examples of both “working together,” says Blancato. He recalls the House Education and Labor Committee working close with his subcommittee on legislation, including the Older Americans Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Blancato sees the need to bringing back the HSCoA. Since it was abolished over 30 years ago, there are many issues that need to be addressed with the graying of the nation’s population, he says.  

“A good gauge to see if House lawmakers consider aging policy to be a bipartisan issue is if the Older Americans Act gets renewed on a bipartisan vote this year,” notes Blancato, stressing that “this will be a good test.”

Elaina K. Goldstein, JD, MPA remembers the day when the HSCoA ceased to exist. “It was heartbreaking to have to pack up the incredible work done by the HSCoA and I am thrilled to be involved with its resurrection,” says the former Legal Counsel for the Subcommittee on Retirement and Employment. “It would be incredible if H. Res. 1029 passes, to once again see its staff work hand in hand with the Committees of jurisdiction to get important issues into the light so they could be remedied to make life better for seniors,” she says.   

As a former HSCoA staffer, Goldstein disagrees with those seeing conflict between the Select Committee and Standing Committees. “Quite the opposite,” she said, noting that Subcommittees did not have and will not have any legislative jurisdiction.,” she noted.  

According to Goldstein, many of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) health concerns and subsequent hearings held by HSCoA were uncovered by the Senate Finance Committee staff who felt they could not move forward politically in their Committee but felt the House Aging Committee could get the issue out in the open and then they could follow up. “As I said, these issues were ultimately addressed in the passage of the Health Insurance Portability and accountability Act of 1996,” she noted.

As to gaining Republican cosponsors, Goldstein sees aging policy losing some of its bi-partisan appeal with the debates over Social Security and Medicare. “It seems that Republican lawmakers feel the issues of Social Security and Medicare are Democratic issues,” she says, noting that there are so many others. “If the Committee would also take on the issues and concerns of people with disabilities —which they do in the Senate Aging committee —many issues that impact the aging are issues for the disabled as well,” she says, stressing this could well increase bi-partisan appeal.

Robert Weiner, President of Robert Weiner Associates News, saw the negative impact of the HSCoA being abolished. As Staff Director of the Health and Long-Term Care Subcommittee from 1975-76 and the former Claude Pepper’s  (D-FL) Chief of Staff (1976-80) when he chaired the full committee, Weiner knew how shortchanged seniors would be when the committee was abolished. “I always have wanted that decision reconsidered.,” he said.

“Reform”, instead of facts on Social Security have unfortunately now become the political value system norm, and age discrimination has crept back more and more, from hiring and firing in everything  whether private sector or politics. The Aging Committee and its members were and could again be a wedge of power representing older Americans of both parties,” says Weiner, who was a close confident of Pepper until he died in 1989.

Looking back, “We got legislation passed abolishing age-based mandatory retirement, as well as Medicare expansion of home health care, standards for cancer insurance, a major Social Security protection deal co-authored by Pepper, and many other laws by initial press during our investigations and then working closely with the standing committees on the bills,” says Weiner.

Some say that Cicilline’s efforts to pass the resolution to reestablish the HSCoA stalled because of the standing committee’s fear of loss of power in the legislative process. “This is anything but new. We did, and any new committee must, cooperate with, meet with, and support the standing committees’ efforts.  Pepper always made friends and cooperated. We worked closely with chairs and leaders from Gus Hawkins (D-CA) to Gladys Spellman (D-MD)  to Dan Rostenkoswski (D-Ill) to House Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass) and Republican leader Bob Michel (R-Ill),” remembered Weiner.

The key to getting Magaziner’s resolution passed is for the Congressman to actively work to expand the co-sponsorships by taking co-sponsorship sign-up sheets and have conversations around the House floor and cloakrooms and thereby get to well over 100,” says Weiner. 

 A Final Note:

At the on-line meeting, former Senior Staff of HSCoA and Washington, DC-based aging groups, and Rhode Island senior advocates, praised Congressman Josh Gottheimer’s co-sponsorship of H. Res. 1029. Increasing the number of co-sponsors to over 100, especially recruiting GOP lawmakers, might just give the resolution traction this Congress.  Hopefully, Congressman Brian K. Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and the moderate Democratic and Republican members of his caucus will see the value of following Gottheimer’s lead. Yes, aging should be considered a bipartisan issue, just like it was in 1974 when both Democrats and Republicans rallied to establish HSCoA.  

Without support of the House Republican leadership, Richtman warns that it is unlikely that H. Res. 1029 will be considered during the 118th Congress.  However, efforts to drive up the number of cosponsors – especially if it can attract some Republican support – might enable the resolution to be considered if there is a more pro-senior majority in the House of Representatives,” he says.

It’s now time for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to step to the plate and support H. Res. 1029, and consider aging to be a bipartisan issue.  The switching of legislative control in the Senate over 47 years and the contentious debates over Social Security and Medicare, has had little impact on the operations of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. The bipartisan panel has continued to investigate and put the spotlight on critical aging issues, working with Senate standing committees to draft legislation to enhance the life and well-being of America’s seniors.  It’s now time for the House to bring back the HSCoA.  

Herb Weiss, LRI’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer who has covered aging, health care and medical issues for over 44 years. To purchase his books, Taking Charge: Collected Stories on Aging Boldly, and a sequel, compiling weekly articles published in this commentary, go to herbweiss.com.

 Participants of April 25 online meeting:

House Staffers: Chief of Staff Clayton Schroers and Kyra Whitelaw, Legislative Assistant, Office of Congressman Seth Magaziner; Maia Leeds, legislative Assistant, for Josh Gottheimer, Office of Congressman Josh Gottheimer.

Senior House Staffers: Bill Benson, former Assistant Secretary for Aging, US Dept. of Health and Human Services and former Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Housing & Consumer Interests, House Permanent Select Committee on Aging, from 1987-90;  Bob Blancato, former Executive Director of the 1995 White House Conference on Aging and former Staff Director, Subcommittee on Housing & Consumer Interests, from 1978-93; Elaina K. Goldstein, JD, MPA,  former Legal Counsel for the Subcommittee on Retirement Income and Employment; Robert S. Weiner, former Staff Director, Subcommittee on Health and Long-Term Care from 1975-77, Chief of Staff of the full Aging Committee from 1976-80); Thomas J. Spulak, former Staff Director, House Rules Committee (under Congressman Pepper), 1982-89 and Chair, the Claude Pepper Foundation.

National Aging Organizations: Nancy Altman, President, Social Security Works, Dan Adcock, Government Relations and Policy Director of the NCPSSM; and David Simon, Legislative Representative for the Alliance for Retired Americans.

Rhode Island: Vincent Marzullo, former Director of the Corporation for National Community Service, Board member of the Senior Agenda of RI, and member of Magaziner’s Senior Advisory Council; Robert Robillard, President of RI Senior Center Directors Association; and writer Herb Weiss.