Coalition of 60 Groups Representing Over 30 Million Americans Launch Campaign to Fight SS cuts

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.afscme.org/press/28833.cfm

For IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, July 29, 2010
Coalition of 60 Groups Representing Over 30 Million Americans Launch Campaign to Fight Social Security Cuts by Fiscal Commission

Richard Trumka (AFL-CIO), Gerald McEntee (AFSCME), Justin Ruben (MoveOn.org), Dennis Van Roekel (NEA), Eliseo Medina (SEIU), Terry O'Neill (NOW), Donna Meltzer (Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities), Hilary Shelton (NAACP), Ed Coyle (Alliance for Retired Americans) Help Launch New Campaign to Protect Social Security

Washington, DC — With press accounts indicating that the Administration’s fiscal commission is considering recommending that Congress cut Social Security benefits, a diverse group of organizations launched a major new campaign today to push back and demand that Congress not make any benefit cuts. New polling shows massive public support for members of Congress who support strengthening, not cutting, Social Security.

More than 60 national and state organizations, representing more than 30 million Americans, have joined the campaign, which will remind elected officials that Social Security remains the “third rail” of American politics and that any sort of benefit cuts are opposed by wide majorities, from liberals to Tea Partiers. At today’s press conference, participants outlined their plans to hold members of Congress who try to cut Social Security benefits accountable.

For more on the campaign: http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/
For more on the polling: http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/LakeMemoPublicFINAL6-29-10.pdf

The first action of the campaign will be to hold hundreds of community events in August to mark the 75th anniversary of Social Security.

“At a time when retirement is less secure for working Americans than it has been in many generations, only Social Security remains a defined and stable retirement benefit,” said Richard L. Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO. “Raising the eligibility age for a full Social Security benefit would be disastrous for millions of Americans. It is a benefit cut, plain and simple. It is a cut that is unnecessary and one that Americans can ill-afford. I know that America can do better than this. And that’s why the AFL-CIO, as part of a broad campaign, is mobilizing to protect Social Security.”

FULL story at link.

[pinto]

1. Good to see them step up to the plate. My take, cuts would not fly in any Congressional vote.

I think some of the hyperbole about the Commission's role and a possible end result is a stretch. Yet, it's good to see this coalition set a point for activism, discussion and public comment. Always pays to cross your t's and dot your i's in political process.

:hi:

[underpants]

2. The cuts will be "means tested" meaning that those who don't need it won't get it

which is, of course, how it should be

[Better Believe It]

3. And who will decide who "needs" Social Security? Don't Means Test Social Security

A "means tested" social security would transform this program into a "welfare for the poor" public assistance program.



Don't Means Test Social Security
By John Rother
January 29, 2010

John Rother is executive vice president for policy and strategy for AARP, which lobbies for people 50 and older


Imposing a means test could destroy the most successful social program in our country's history. Social Security does need moderate changes to restore its long-term fiscal health. The sooner we make those changes, the more modest they can be. But Social Security does not need a change that would alter its fundamental character, create incentives against saving for retirement, and undermine its popular support. A means test would do just that.

The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs. Social Security can help everyone. Means testing is a feature of taxpayer-funded welfare programs designed to help the poor. A means test would inevitably erode the universal and contributory nature of Social Security and some of the popular support that has sustained it for nearly 75 years.

Preserving the traditional character of Social Security is also good for democracy. It is a popular and inclusive part of the American social contract at a time when the economic gulf between haves and have-nots is growing wider.

Imposing new limits for the well-off could backfire in various ways. A means test could adversely affect retirement planning and lower the personal savings rate if people concluded the program would penalize them for having higher retirement incomes or larger nest eggs. It would discourage older persons from continuing to work beyond eligibility age, depriving them—and the economy—of additional money. It would create incentives for people to take lump-sum distributions from pension plans, strategies that could prove shortsighted and harmful.

Social Security is the largest source of income for roughly two thirds of retirees, and it helps millions live with the dignity that comes from financial independence. Just think how much our current economic travails would be magnified if Social Security were not there to fill the void left by empty savings accounts, battered 401(k) plans, and vanishing private pensions.

Adding a means test to Social Security would raise the danger that such a day looms in the future. But by preserving the universal character of Social Security, we can avoid such a tragedy.

Read the full article at:

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/29/dont-means-test-social-security-lets-not-kill-the-golden-goose-.html

[underpants]

4. If you had wages that were exempt from SS tax then you get less SS

how's that?

I understand that the AARP has to do this but they know full well that people who made lots of money ( much of which was beyond the Social Security tax) then they don't NEED Social Security.

[Omaha Steve]

6. Raise the cap on wages

Keep the maximum payout the same. Upper income gets less.

[spooky3]

10. don't cut it at all or raise SS caps - stop "borrowing" from it to use for other purposes

Al Gore was right about the lock box.

[Better Believe It]

15. A simple "solution" that won't hurt us.

[laughingliberal]

8. The minute you make it a 'welfare' program, it is doomed.

The demonization of 'welfare' recipients is one of the most successful RW campaigns of the past 30 years. Reserve SS for the poor and it goes the way of the dinosaur.

[Better Believe It]

9. And do you really think the gov't would only deny social security to billionaires?

People do not receive any social security benefits on "lots of money" that is earned beyond the Social Security tax cap or on income that is not covered by the FICA tax.

It appears you haven't read the full article which points out that:

"We also should remember that Social Security already makes distinctions based on income. Lower-wage earners get a higher return on their contributions. Higher-income retirees pay income tax on a portion of their benefits. Given these progressive features, it's not logical to add a means test. In fact, Social Security is far more progressive than any other retirement program."

[underpants]

12. Yes if that is how the law is written

to answer your question.

It is progressive. More progressive than many others but there is no reason that is can't be MORE progressive. That is my point.

[Better Believe It]

14. The commission will not propose that. It's more likely the Sun will rise in the West.

[LWolf]

5. k&r

[L0oniX]

7. WARNING ...DANGER ...be prepared to be voted out of office.

do ya get the message you fucking anti SS asscarrots?

[Better Believe It]

11. Many don't care if they lose an election. They move on to higher paying corporate lobbyist jobs.

[BeHereNow]

13. Sad but SO true... n/t

bhn