Tag Archives for U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee

Aging Programs Get Slashed in Bush’s War Budget

Published in Pawtucket Times on February 18, 2002

In the shadow of the horrific terrorist attacks on Sept. 11th, domestic programs take the backseat in President Bush’s $ 2.13 trillion fiscal year 2003 budget, released in early February, with significant funding increases being targeted for both military and  homeland defense.

As 77 million baby boomers approach their 65th birthdays within the next decade, aging groups say the President’s wartime budget does not go far enough in many areas to meet the aging baby boomer’s needs in the coming years.

One of the most hotly debated Congressional issues is affordable prescription drugs. With the Congressional election looming next year, this is certain to be a key issue in every state. Don’t look for this issue to lose importance to seniors or to the aging groups who call for meaningful Medicare drug benefits.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 years, Medicare beneficiaries will spend about $1.6 trillion out-of-pocket on prescription drugs. But the recently released Bush budget proposal only contains $ 190 billion over 10 years for Medicare reform, including $ 77 billion to assist seniors with prescription drugs.

The National Council on Aging (NCOA), a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, estimates that on average, the Bush administration’s proposal would cover less than one out of 10 dollars spend on drugs by seniors.

Martha A. McSteen, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, agreed that Bush’s budget proposal shortchanges seniors and the disabled in providing needed health care and services.

In his State of the Union address, the president restated his campaign promise to provide prescription drug coverage for every senior, noted McSteen, who added, “That is an empty promise if the budget does not contain these needed resources.

“At least $ 450 billion is needed over the next 10 years to provide a comprehensive and affordable prescription drug benefit as part of the Medicare program,” McSteen says.

John Rother, AARP’s Policy and Strategy Director, said, “Although federal budget constraints are greater than last year, so too is the need for affordable prescription drugs for Americans age 65 and over. Unfortunately, disease and pain did not disappear with the budget surplus.”

However, U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-Rhode Island, said he believes the President’s budget request recognizes the precarious state of the Medicare system, as well as other challenges faced by the nation’s seniors.

“The president has acknowledged the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit as well as [the need] for a significant increase in funding for disease research conducted by the National Institutes of Health,” he said.

While Chafee said he will push for legislation that will create more comprehensive Medicare prescription drug benefits than the legislation proposed by the president, he warned the deficit created by the combination of the economic slowdown, the war on terrorism and last year’s tax cut will make enactment of any new spending programs more difficult to accomplish.

Meanwhile, programs under the Older Americans Act, are provided with less funding in Bush’s budget proposal than they were last year.

“Around the country, people are on waiting lists for meals-on-wheels programs and congregate meals programs,” said McSteen.

“There are state and local programs that need additional federal funds to counter the increasing problems of elder abuse. The administration’s funding request for these programs is woefully inadequate.”

Other federal programs get sliced and diced under the Bush administration’s FY 2003 budget, according to U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, who pointed to an 8 percent cut for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget for chronic care.

The four-term Congressman and member of the House Aging Caucus said he finds this cut troubling due to the significant gains that have been made in efforts to prevent and treat diseases that effect an aging population.

With a growing number of families caring or loved ones with Alzheimer’s Disease, Kennedy said he strongly opposes the Bush administration’s axing of the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program, which helps protect and locate missing patients with the devastating disease.

The program has assisted in the return of more that 5,700 wanderers and increased its data base to 67,000 persons with Alzheimer’s,” said Kennedy. “It has succeeded in its many efforts on a budget of $ 898,000 in fiscal year 2002.”

While prescription drugs comes up a loser in the Bush budget, some aging initiatives are clearly on the White House’s radar screen.

Bush’s budget proposal provides about $ 3 billion in additional funds toward research and is the final installment in a five-year effort to double the size of the National Institute of Health budget, says McSteen. She said she believes increased federal funding would assist in “producing breakthroughs in the prevention, treatment, management of conditions associated with aging.”

The Administration’s budget also provides a personal exemption to home caretakers of family members and the funding of respite and direct care worker demonstration projects.

Now Bush’s Budget proposal moves to Congress, where a Republican-controlled House and Democratic Senate will make major revisions, ultimately hammering out a final road map to federal spending.

The funding of federal programs to meet the needs of older Americans is crucial as our nation’s population ages.

Furthermore, with an increasing federal budget deficit, Republican and Democratic lawmakers must not get tied down to partisan wrangling as they attempt to iron out differences in creating a Medicare benefit to make prescription rugs more affordable to seniors.

As the Congressional elections get closer, seniors will call for concrete legislative action, not political rhetoric or fancy words.

Presidential Commission Kicks off Social Security Reform Debate

Published in Pawtucket Times on December 17, 2001

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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