Opinion

IN RESPONSE

Entitlements and our debt

By CARLA SLOAN
SPECIAL TO THE LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Jan. 8, 2012 | 2:15 a.m.

During the recent debates about increasing the federal debt ceiling, some in Congress suggested that Social Security and Medicare should be cut to pay our nation's bills. AARP and our members disagreed.

Our message to Washington was clear: Don't cut Social Security or Medicare to reduce the deficit. Frankly, Washington needs to get its own house in order and cut waste, crackdown on pork-barrel projects, and close tax loopholes instead of raiding our children and grandchildren's retirement funds. Social Security is a promise our nation has made to America's workers and their families, and to all current and future beneficiaries -- a promise that has endured for more than 77 years -- a promise that must be kept.

In a recent Review-Journal column (Dec. 25, "The scariest year-end list around"), Glenn Cook suggested that Social Security was broke; that the trust fund was gone. That is simply not true. The funds are in U.S. Treasury Bonds, the safest investment in the world. Those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which has never defaulted on its commitments.

Social Security is currently able to pay full benefits through 2037 and after that, payroll taxes coming in are enough to cover roughly 75 percent of the promised benefits. Does that sound like "broke" to you?

Even though full benefits can be paid until 2037, AARP has long said that Congress should act sooner rather than later to address the program's benefit adequacy and long term solvency so that we can protect this lifeline both for future generations and for those who depend on it today.

In Nevada alone, 30 percent of those relying on Social Security would fall below the poverty line without it. And the benefits aren't generous. In 2009 and 2010, during the height of our economic recession, Social Security beneficiaries got no cost-of-living adjustment at all -- this despite increasing medical costs, utility bills, food prices and the cost of other basic services.

Medicare is a different story. Even though older Americans have paid through a lifetime of work for this benefit, Medicare costs are escalating at a rate faster than the money taken in through payroll taxes. This is part of an underlying problem of skyrocketing costs in health care overall. Washington's suggestion that we simply shift these costs to seniors already overburdened by medical bills does not address the problems of our current health care system. The typical Medicare beneficiary spends 20 percent or more out of his own pocket on health care. With the average senior living on less than $20,000 per year, high health care costs make difficult for many to make ends meet as it is.

We will continue to advocate for better controls over Medicare fraud, estimated to be as much as $80 billion a year; for allowing Medicare to negotiate better drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, a practice currently forbidden; and for creating IT systems that reduce waste through better tracking of tests, procedures and information which can be shared among health care professionals.

At AARP, we feel that too many in Washington have the wrong priorities. The president and Congress have just spent the last year talking behind closed doors about cutting Social Security and Medicare to help close the nation's budget gap -- with little attention to the views of their constituents. What they should be doing is listening to Americans, who -- whether they're Republicans, Democrats or Independents -- want Washington to work to strengthen Medicare and Social Security for future generations.

That's what we'll be doing. And by the way, we won't be retiring anytime soon.

Carla Sloan is state director of AARP Nevada. She writes from Las Vegas.

Comments

Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Terms & Conditions

The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.

Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.

Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

  1. Carly.EngageAmerica Jan. 13, 2012 | 6:37 a.m. Report Abuse

    Changing Social Security would ultimately save it. The way in which the program functions now is simply unsustainable. The way in which the program functions now is simply unsustainable. Currently Social Security and Medicare use 8.5% of nonentitlement revenuees (federal revenues dedicated to all other programs besides the two). By 2020, the deficits will grow to almost 25%. This means that within 9 years, in order to pay projected benefits to retirees and the disabled, the federal government will have to stop doing about one out of every five things it does today (http://eng.am/poetWU).

    All of the following solutions will substantially eliminate these problems: Reducing benefit payments by 5% AND increase the retirement age to 70 over time; increasing both the employee and employer contribution immediately by 1.1% for income up to $106,800 (its current limit); reducing benefit payments by 5% AND increase both the employee and employer contribution immediately by 0.05% each year for the next 20 years for income up to $106,800 (its current limit); removing the $106,800 limit and count all income towards the SS tax; decreasing the cost of living adjustment by 1% per year AND raise the retirement age to 67; or taxing income over $106,800 at 3%, index the retirement age to longevity AND decrease cost of living adjustment by 0.5% (http://eng.am/oTlck2 ).

  2. LasVegasLibertarian Jan. 11, 2012 | 3:47 p.m. Report Abuse

    Mrs horse ed....Always whining like a true liberal - leech, huh?....Too bad we can't cut off your welfare check you sniveling snot!...AARP has become nothing more than another whining leftist organization which simply tries to suck blood from working people...Here is a thought...Go to work....save YOUR money...plan for retirement....get off the dole!!!!...Why do you leftists always think someone else should pay YOUR bills?

  3. 70aarcuda Jan. 9, 2012 | 7:58 p.m. Report Abuse

    and Clinton and his democrats voted to TAX SS benefits back 1992.....

  4. davea Jan. 8, 2012 | 8:09 p.m. Report Abuse

    Class warfare, maybe since the "progressives" want to push Evolution down everyone's throat, maybe "natural selection" is the way to go. Let everyone on welfare either get a job or starve to death.

  5. Athos Jan. 8, 2012 | 2:47 p.m. Report Abuse

    Supreme court ruled it is tax. It is NOT a pension plan. See "Bernie Madoff" if you have any more questions.

  6. n7v.blogspot.com Jan. 8, 2012 | 2:32 p.m. Report Abuse

    Social Security is a promise our nation has made to America's workers and their families

    There's a sucker born every minute.

    FICA is a tax. It's just that the crooked politicians have figured out that it's easier to sell a tax when you tell gullibles that the money is being earmarked to them in the form of monthly checks when they "retire".

    The fact is that the crooked politicians could vote that "benefit" out-of-existence TOMORROW, and unless it also voted to repeal the employer/employee "contribution", we would continue to pay the tax.

    Every time you read a study on the subject you find that geezers are financially the most well-off demographic. It really is OUTRAGEOUS that young people are being taxed to pay for the Geezers' Caribbean cruises and Viagra.

  7. mrs ed Jan. 8, 2012 | 10:54 a.m. Report Abuse

    A trillion dollars of freebies for Iraq and Afghanistan...including free medical care, but God forbid if a USA citizen gets the benefits of programs that they paid into. Veterans of WWI had it very bad, bonus marchers, etc. The GI BILL helped veterans of WWII improve there lifestyle. Medicare and Social Security have helped people. The RJ wants to replace insurance with a tin cup handout to people that have worked hard and played by the rules. The Koch Brothers want to return America to the 1880's.

  8. iamretired Jan. 8, 2012 | 10:37 a.m. Report Abuse

    Secret squirrell hit the nail on the head, And Lets just stop sending money to other countries, really India first, hiding Bin Laden? Really! Turdhole countries shouldn't get a dime more from our country. They are the evil of the middle east, laughing at Americans! First big step is stop foreign aid period.

  9. MSchaffer Jan. 8, 2012 | 10:24 a.m. Report Abuse

    ...Or stay with AARP and have at least SOME contact with reality.

  10. Jon.Lewis Jan. 8, 2012 | 9:03 a.m. Report Abuse

    AARP is a shill for the Democrats. Join the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC) for an organization with a conservative stance.

Read All Comments

Saturday, May 26, 2012
Partly Sunny Partly Sunny, 60° Weather Forecast