Occupy Louisiana shared I love it when I wake up in the morning and Barack Obama is President.'s photo.
![I swear, this isn't a dig. It's the truth. And I don't think it's ever been said more succinctly than this. -Debra
Via @[104867519641719:274:Formidable Republican Opposition]](http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/643877_498806826820406_927739401_n.jpg)
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Why Is the News Media Ignoring Questions About Taxing Wall St Transactions (Robin Hood Tax)?
Where's Robin Hood? Media Ignore Wall Street Tax
Media Advisory
Robin Hood Isn't NewsWall Street Transaction Tax Missing from 'Cliff' Coverage  If the rhetoric about the so-called "fiscal cliff" is to believed, the United States is faced with monumental budget problems--short-term deficits and a long-term debt crisis.Though there are good reasons to question those assumptions (Dean Baker, Guardian, 12/3/12; Paul Krugman, New York Times, 12/6/12), the consensus in the elite press is that these are indeed serious concerns, and that the solution to them must include cutting government spending and increasing revenue. But one way to do the latter is mostly left out of the conversation: A small tax on financial transactions--otherwise known as a "speculation tax" or a Robin Hood tax. The idea has been discussed among activists and economists, especially since the financial crash. Such a tax could raise between $170-$350 billion annually, according to the Center for Economic & Policy Research (CEPR) and the Political Economy Research Institute (12/21/09). An analysis of the bill written by Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin found it could generate a more modest $353 billion over 10 years. Aside from the revenue argument, proponents argue that it could serve as a check on some of the riskier forms of high-frequency, high-volume trading. So where is the Robin Hood tax in the media discussion about increasing revenues? Almost nowhere, it turns out. Since the 2012 election, the concept has received a handful of passing mentions. It appeared just once in the New York Times (11/28/12)--only because several ACT UP activists staged a protest in House speaker John Boehner's office, chanting "End AIDS with a Robin Hood Tax." The Times explained that as "ostensibly a tax on the rich for AIDS research and treatment." The financial tax was mentioned in passing by the Washington Post (11/8/12) because Rep. DeFazio was targeted by a New York hedge fund manager's super PAC. The tax has come up twice on MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes ( 11/17/12, 12/9/12), and once on CNN (12/1/12). It does not appear to have been discussed on any of the broadcast networks. The most extensive discussion came on the Washington Post's op-ed page, in a December 2 column by veteran activist Ralph Nader, who wrote that "both sides are unwilling to consider a minuscule tax on financial transactions that could be a major source of income." If "both sides" are ignoring the idea, the same is certainly true for the nation's press. But this hasn't always been the case. As CEPR noted (11/12), several major papers like the Boston Globe, the New York Times and USA Today have voiced editorial support for the tax idea in recent years, as have columnists like the Times' Nicholas Kristof. The amount of potential revenue, Nader pointed out, makes a transaction tax a more attractive option than other fiscal proposals that receive significantly more coverage. One thing is certain: It is decidedly unpopular among the "Fix the Debt" CEOs who many in the press consider important voices in the discussion of the nation's finances--and are the people who bankroll political careers. So it's understandable that politicians aren't eager to talk about this. What's the media's excuse? |
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Smart Talk On Ending the Bush Tax Cuts
NUMBER 8 | December 4, 2012
Hold The Line On Ending The Bush Tax Cuts
| The Challenge | The emerging Washington consensus on tax reform is that we can raise more revenue by lowering tax rates, especially on the wealthy and corporations, while “broadening the base” by limiting or eliminating tax deductions. Lowering rates, it is argued, helps growth; closing loopholes produces revenue to reduce deficits. It is a seductive proposition. But there are good reasons to resist the seduction. The argument that lower rates for corporations and the top 2 percent of taxpayers accelerate economic growth is simply not borne out by the evidence. Reviewing the post World War II history, a peer-reviewed September 2012 Congressional Research Service study concluded, “There is not conclusive evidence … to substantiate a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth.” Worse, previous tax reform has closed loopholes but not lobbies. The lobbies then build in new loopholes while the lower rates remain. Simplifying the tax code is a worthy and necessary goal, but tax “reform” that begins with lower top tax rates is likely to end by enriching the already rich and cutting off needed revenues. |
| Make the Case | We need more jobs and lower deficits. And we suffer the most extreme income inequality since the Gilded Age in the 1890s. That is because the tax cuts of the last decade encouraged a greater concentration of wealth at the top 1 percent, while doing nothing to encourage job creation that would expand the middle class. We should be asking the wealthy to pay more in taxes, so we can invest in areas vital to our economy and, as people go back to work, reduce our deficits. The richest few who’ve done well in America need to do right by America. If you follow those who say that we can get more revenue by lowering rates and closing loopholes, history shows we’ll end up with lower rates, new loopholes and less revenue — with no guarantee of greater growth. Truth is, President Bill Clinton raised top-end taxes and enjoyed record job growth. President George W. Bush cut taxes and we suffered the worst job growth of any president since the Great Depression. Americans have no problem with financial success. But they demand fairness, and continuing to give a millionaire a $150,000 tax cut while the rest of us are stuck with the bill is not fair. It is time for corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share. |
| Case in Point | The first step is to put people to work doing work that needs to be done. That brings down deficits as they start earning incomes and paying taxes, not collecting unemployment insurance. We can pay for this by making certain that the richest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. Start by ending the Bush tax cuts to those making over $250,000 a year, a proposal central to President Obama’s election campaign and mandate. Then investors should pay taxes on their investment income at the same rate that the rest of us pay on our income from wages. When secretaries are paying higher rates than the billionaires that employ them, something is fundamentally wrong. |
| Counterpoint |
When They Say: Lower tax rates create growth; closing loopholes and broadening the base will generate greater revenues.
We Say: That hasn’t worked in the past, and won’t in the future. President Bush’s own Treasury Department admitted in 2006 that the Bush tax cuts would have essentially no beneficial effect on the U.S. economy at all. Look what happened after the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts: the weakest economic expansion in post-World War II history. Bottom line: That’s an experiment we’ve tried and can’t afford to repeat. The Bush tax cuts cost us $2.5 trillion in their first decade, added to extreme inequality and helped put us in the hole we’re in.
When They Say: We have the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and that’s hurting our ability to be competitive globally.
We Say: Actually, the rate companies really pay—because of loopholes and tax havens—is one of the lowest in the industrial world. In fact, General Electric is but one of a long list of major U.S. corporations that made billions in profits and paid nothing in taxes.
When They Say: We can’t raise taxes on job creators now. And most small businesses pay individual income tax rates, not corporate tax rates.
We Say: Letting the Bush tax cuts expire on those earning more than $250,000 a year won’t touch more than 97 percent of small businesses. Most of those who do face higher rates are wealthy doctors, lawyers and other professionals who can afford to pay more.
When They Say: We need the simplicity and fairness provided by a flat tax structure with a couple of rates and fewer deductions.
We Say: Getting rid of overseas tax dodges, glaring loopholes and unfair tax breaks is a good idea. But we can have simplicity and still insist that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. |
| Public Pulse | In a post-election poll, 56 percent of respondents said “the best way for Congress to deal with the Bush tax cuts” is to end them for those making $250,000 or more a year. (Hart Research for Americans for Tax Fairness) In an Election Day exit poll, 60 percent of respondents supported raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, while 35 percent supported not raising taxes on anyone. (CNN) Seventy percent say that raising taxes on the richest 2 percent while keeping taxes low for low- and middle-income people was an “acceptable” way to deal with the budget deficit, and 68 percent say not raising taxes on the rich was “unacceptable.” (Democracy Corps poll for Campaign for America’s Future, November 2012) Fifty-one percent (42 percent strongly) support the view that “any new plan to address the deficit should start by closing corporate loopholes and raising taxes for those at the top” and not cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. (Democracy Corps poll for Campaign for America’s Future, November 2012) Substantial majorities (84 percent) support reforms that would ensure that corporations paid the same tax on their foreign profits as they do on their U.S. profits. (Hart Research for Americans for Tax Fairness) Only 26 percent of respondents in a national survey said they believed the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes. (Pew Research Center). In a poll of 2012 general election voters, 62 percent said one message they were trying to send with their vote was that “we should make sure the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes.” (Hart Research/AFL-CIO, November 2012) |
| Hot Facts |  The top tax rate an hourly worker pays is 35 percent, while the top tax rate on the income made by a Wall Street stock trader or hedge fund manager is just 15 percent. That’s why Mitt Romney paid a 14 percent tax rate on income of over $20 million a year. If we taxed investment profits at the same rates we tax workers’ wages, that would make more than $500 billion available over the next decade for critical national needs or to reduce the deficit. (Citizens for Tax Justice). Giving tax breaks to the wealthy is among the least effective ways to create jobs. But, if we extend the middle-class portion of the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans and adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax so it doesn't affect middle-class households, that will create 1.6 million jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and boost economic growth by 1.3 percentage points. (Congressional Budget Office) For every dollar Warren Buffett earns, he pays about 17 cents in taxes, while the people who work in his office pay on average more than twice that—36 cents of every dollar. (New York Times) Under our current tax laws, nearly 1,500 millionaires and some of the nation’s largest corporations get away with paying no income tax at all. (Americans for Tax Fairness, Citizens for Tax Justice) Ending the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2 percent would affect on average only two out of 100 people in each state. (Americans for Tax Fairness) |
Monday, December 3, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
In the South, Voting Against Our Own Self Interests
I can't figure out for the life of me how working class people in the south, and especially in Louisiana, think! I just watched on a political ad how a candidate used the fact that he is against Obamacare as a reason why we should vote for him. To my way of thinking that would be the biggest why I would NOT vote for him. If you are a person who has children that are teenagers and young adults, it's like voting for them not to have insurance because, let's face it, they won't be able to afford any on their own, for some years. But if you could keep them on your insurance coverage it would help you and them immensely. The prescription drug doughnut hole, which has hurt so many who depend on their prescriptions, has been almost closed. Chances are that if you have health insurance the cost of your premium keeps escalating and the value of your care is becoming shoddier and shoddier. Obamacare mandates that insurance companies MUST spend 85% of insurance dollars on care and no more than 15% on overhead. In other words, no more multi-million dollar salaried CEOs while people are perishing from poor care or lack of any care at all.The doughnut hole was given to us courtesy of the fully republican controlled congress on behalf of the pharmaceutical corporations. And let us not forget the fact that insurance companies are now prohibited from refusing insurance to you because of prior conditions and illnesses. And there are many other good things about the ACA that people are ignorant of, but haven't tried to find what they are.They just listen to people who use their ignorance against them, knowing they are uninformed and will never take the time to inform themselves. This is the same tactic southern politicians have been using since the days of the civil rights era and it's still working today. They play on fear and ignorance! Why is it that working class people don't think healthcare should be a right for every American? We are the most prosperous country on the earth, yet we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have free healthcare for it's citizens. We listen to people who proclaim how wonderful our health care system is, but see so many dying from preventable bisease because we won't practice preventive medicine.
Obamacare provides for free prenatal care, mammograms, cancer screenings and pap smears,. These things are hugely important to women but to vote against the ACA is voting to deny them these things. Those who are against Obamacare use the issue of abortion to trick you into voting against your own interests. Take the case of Planned Parenthood. They have brainwashed you into thinking that abortions is the main business of this organization. If that is your impression, someone has given you a false impression. Planned Parenthood provides all of the aforementioned services. Yes, I believe they do provide a certain amount of abortions (which I definitely don't approve of). But the question is "does the fact that they do perform this procedure overrule all of the good works they do"? In my opinion, IT DOES NOT! It's a woman's choice, however tragic, to make if she wants to do such a horrible thing. They should provided with counseling, pro and con, but in the end they are the ones who have to live with and answer for it.
So I can't why Obamacare is something to be hated rather than to be desired.I don't believe it is just because Obamais black because we were also duped into thinkig the same thing when Bill Clinton was president. It was Mrs. Clinton's intitiative and the corporations vilified and demonized for the rest of her husband's presidency. If we don't believe that we should have universal healthcare, something is wrong with us.
Obamacare provides for free prenatal care, mammograms, cancer screenings and pap smears,. These things are hugely important to women but to vote against the ACA is voting to deny them these things. Those who are against Obamacare use the issue of abortion to trick you into voting against your own interests. Take the case of Planned Parenthood. They have brainwashed you into thinking that abortions is the main business of this organization. If that is your impression, someone has given you a false impression. Planned Parenthood provides all of the aforementioned services. Yes, I believe they do provide a certain amount of abortions (which I definitely don't approve of). But the question is "does the fact that they do perform this procedure overrule all of the good works they do"? In my opinion, IT DOES NOT! It's a woman's choice, however tragic, to make if she wants to do such a horrible thing. They should provided with counseling, pro and con, but in the end they are the ones who have to live with and answer for it.
So I can't why Obamacare is something to be hated rather than to be desired.I don't believe it is just because Obamais black because we were also duped into thinkig the same thing when Bill Clinton was president. It was Mrs. Clinton's intitiative and the corporations vilified and demonized for the rest of her husband's presidency. If we don't believe that we should have universal healthcare, something is wrong with us.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Friday, November 23, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Mitt Romney's Son Owns Voting Machines In Ohio
Charlie Turner, Demand Progress
As this critical election nears, we're teaming up with our friends at CREDO Action to urge the Department of Justice to make sure there's no funny business in Ohio -- Will you join us?
Ohio could decide the election, and its voting machines are made by a company with very close ties to Mitt Romney -- you can read on below for more details.
If you've already signed the petition, will you use these links to ask your friends to sign too?
-Demand Progress
Ohio could decide the election, and its voting machines are made by a company with very close ties to Mitt Romney -- you can read on below for more details.
If you've already signed the petition, will you use these links to ask your friends to sign too?
 |  |
 |
|  Dear Friend,Could a voting machine company with deep financial ties to the Romney family help Republicans steal the presidential election in Ohio? It could happen. If this year's presidential election comes down to the electoral votes in Ohio, the deciding votes could be cast on electronic voting machines manufactured by Hart Intercivic. Tell the Department of Justice: Don't let Republicans steal the election in Ohio with Romney-owned voting machines. Click here to sign the petition. A 2007 study conducted by Ohio's Secretary of State showed that Hart Intercivic's touch screen voting machines could be easily corrupted. The New York Times reported: At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers.1Hart Intercivic is majority owned by H.I.G. Capital which controls two of the five seats on the Hart Intercivic board. An investment fund with deep ties to the Romney family and the Mitt Romney for president campaign, H.I.G. Capital was founded by Tony Tamer, a major bundler for the Romney campaign, and it is one of the largest partners of Solamere Capital, an investment fund founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Mitt Romney's chief fundraiser from the 2008 presidential campaign.2 This makes the Romney family part owner of the voting machine company, through it's interest in H.I.G. Capital. Tell the Department of Justice: Don't let Republicans steal the election in Ohio with Romney-owned voting machines. Click here to sign the petition. What's more, three other H.I.G. Capital directors are major fundraisers for the Romney campaign, and H.I.G. Capital is the 11th largest contributor to the Mitt Romney campaign.3 Two of the company's directors, Douglas Berman and Brian Schwartz, were even in attendance at the Boca Raton fundraiser4 where Romney infamously declared: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what… who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it… These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.5And as if the ties between Tagg Romney's Solamere, Romney contributors at H.I.G. Capital, and Hart Intercivic weren't astonishing enough, two members of Hart Intercivic's 5-member board of directors made direct contributions to the Romney campaign. That's right. Directors of the company that makes touchscreen voting machines that could decide the presidential election in Ohio, have made contributions to the Mitt Romney for President campaign. It is disturbing and dangerous that Hart Intercivic, the company that makes the machines that will count many of the votes in Ohio on election night has deep financial ties to family members of Mitt Romney. And that its leadership has been actively involved presidential campaign by donating and bundling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mitt Romney. The fact that these machines are easily corruptible touch screen voting machines makes matters even worse. Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a tight election race which could very well be decided by Ohio's 18 electoral votes. We must take action now. http://act.demandprogress.org/go/749?t=16&akid=1833.2067735.6PXlqz Thank you for all you do to protect the integrity of our Democracy. Becky Bond, Political Director CREDO Action from Working Assets 1. Bob Driehaus, "Ohio Elections Official Calls Machines Flawed," New York Times, December 15, 2007. 2. Rick Ungar, "Romney Family Investment Ties To Voting Machine Company That Could Decide The Election Causing Concern," Forbes, October 20, 2012. 3. "Mitt Romney (R) Top Contributors." Open Secrets, October 1, 2012. 4. Dave Gilson, Who Was at Romney's "47 Percent" Fundraiser?, Mother Jones, Sept. 18, 2012. 5. MoJo News Team, "Full Transcript of the Mitt Romney Secret Video," Mother Jones, September 19, 2012.
| ||||||||
Friday, November 2, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Rallies for Elizabeth Warren's Senate Candidacy
| |||||||||||
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Protect Social Security; We're All Going To Need It
NUMBER 4 | October 10, 2012
Protect Social Security – We Are ALL Going To Need It
| The Challenge | Most baby boomers will “retire” with no pension and very little in savings. Gen Xers and millennials will have even less, given the bad economy and long-term jobs shortage. Even more than seniors, today’s workers, especially women and people of color, will really need Social Security. And yet a multimillion-dollar campaign is being waged to get the president and Congress to cut Social Security benefits for everyone, with the worst cuts aimed at those under the age of 55. The people waging this campaign are the authors of the “Bowles-Simpson” deficit reduction plan – backed up by big money coming from billionaire private equity fund manager Peter G. Peterson and other Wall Street and corporate millionaires. Even though unemployment is the number one issue on the minds of most Americans, these elite activists say we must cut Social Security in order to reduce the federal deficit. |
| Make the Case | Social Security is a critical system that serves us all, like the military or the Interstate Highway System. It is the foundation of American retirement security – more so today, now that pensions are disappearing and private savings, inherently risky, have been hit hard. It is basic protection for our families if we become disabled or die. Each generation has done its part to maintain its foundations over the 77 years of its existence. During good times and bad, working Americans have paid into Social Security, and it is by far the safest, most efficient, most universal, and most reliable way for Americans to guarantee their retirement savings. The case against the so-called “deficit hawks” is easy: Social Security doesn’t contribute one penny to the federal deficit. In fact, the program is legally forbidden from increasing the deficit. As we all know, the benefits our parents and grandparents receive each month are covered by the payroll taxes (or FICA, for Federal Insurance Contributions Act) they paid when they were working – and we pay today. This is Social Security’s dedicated stream of income. Moreover, people working today are paying extra in Social Security taxes to cover the benefits of baby-boom retirees. |
| Case in Point |  If the U.S. economy grows at a healthy rate, Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of retirement benefits far into the future. Based on a scenario of slow economic growth and reduced immigration, those who want to cut Social Security benefits point to a possible imbalance between Social Security payouts and income that MIGHT affect the program around 20 years from now. The cutters use scary phrases like “Social Security will go bankrupt,” when, even under the worse-case scenario, the system would still be able to pay retirees 75% of their current benefits forever. That’s not exactly a crisis – it’s a possible shortfall that might not ever happen if we have a healthy economy. Deficit-cutters lump Social Security together with Medicare and Medicaid, calling them all “entitlements,” a word that implies the recipients didn’t work for their benefits. But these programs are part of a social contract Americans have built to make sure that people who have contributed to our country all their lives should have a decent standard of living. That’s why proposals to “privatize” Social Security were soundly defeated. That is also why we won’t let politicians reduce Social Security benefits – or Medicare or Medicaid. The case against cutting Social Security is a slam dunk. It doesn’t add to the deficit. But that doesn’t mean we should cut Medicare or Medicaid. Those who are worried about the costs of those programs should be calling for more thoroughgoing reform of the private health care system – including getting drug and insurance companies to compete on price, not on cutting benefits. If our health care system did as well at containing costs as European systems, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid would be cheaper and more stable, and the U.S. would not have a long-term deficit problem. (Watch for more on this in future Smart Talks.) |
| Counterpoint | When they say: Social Security is fueling our debt crisis. It is like a Ponzi scheme: When Social Security began, we have 16 workers for every retiree. Now we have only 2 workers for each retiree. Something’s got to give. You can say: If the U.S. had a full-employment economy, with the millions of currently unemployed people working and paying Social Security taxes, we would not have a shortfall in Social Security revenues – not now, not ever. So the future of Social Security, like lots of things in America, requires that we invest in jobs, not slash public spending, as most “deficit hawks” want to do. It would also help to solve our immigration problem, so millions of new Americans would be paying into the system. When they say: It is true that Social Security has its own revenue stream, but those U.S. bonds in the so-called Trust Fund are just IOUs. To pay future benefits, we are going to pay off those bonds – a cost we can’t afford. You can say: Hey, I worked hard, paying more taxes than needed to cover current retirees, to build up that Trust Fund, projected to grow to $4.3 trillion by 2023. My real dollars went into buying those bonds. Politicians ran up deficits paying for two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy. Now, conservatives want to raid the Social Security Trust Fund by cutting benefits and using the money to pay off the bills they ran up. When somebody tells you’re the trust fund isn’t real, they are getting ready to cut promised benefits. Social Security does not belong in the mix for reducing the federal deficit. When they say: By ignoring the ticking time bombs of the Social Security trust fund, you are putting your head in the sand. You can say: Social Security is NOT a ticking time bomb. The system has paid every penny of benefits owed for the last 77 years. The Social Security trustees carefully project future income and outlays based on predictions about demographics, economic growth, immigration and a host of other factors. Under one, rather pessimistic, prediction about future economic growth, there might be a shortfall in 2033 (20 years from now). But remember, even if slow growth causes that to happen, Social Security still has a revenue stream from working Americans, and we could still pay 75 percent of those projected future benefits far into the future. Far from putting our heads in the sand, Social Security supporters have advanced lots of proposals for how to deal with this possible future shortfall – without cutting benefits. Here’s the best: make sure that millionaires and billionaires pay the same Social Security tax rate as regular people. Most of us – people making $30,000 or $50,000 per year, for example – pay Social Security taxes on 100 percent of our income. But people making $1 million per year pay taxes only on the first $110,100 of their income. If we get rid of this cap and make everyone pay the same rate, we’d have enough to fill any future benefit shortfalls – and we could increase benefits for women, the disabled, and poorer people. When they say: We don’t want to cut Social Security benefits, we just want to “adjust” the cost of living formula – or we want to raise the retirement age because people are living longer. You can say: Changing the consumer price index used to calculate the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to save money IS a benefit cut. It would cut benefits for current as well as future beneficiaries, disabled workers and widow(er)s as well as retirees. An average earner retiring at 65 would see her benefits reduced by about $600 a year after 10 years and $1,000 a year after 20 years, hitting beneficiaries hardest in late old age when they are often most vulnerable. And raising the retirement age IS a benefit cut. When the retirement age is raised, no matter when you retire, your benefits will be reduced by about 13 percent from what you are currently scheduled to receive. |
| The Public Pulse | By a 3 to 1 margin, voters in the swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia, don’t believe Social Security and Medicare need to be cut to reduce our deficits (The Washington Post-Kaiser Foundation). 53 percent of American adults would prefer to raise taxes than cut Social Security benefits for future generations (Associated Press-GfK). 66 percent of Americans, including 45 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Independents, favor increasing income taxes for upper-income Americans, compared with 42 percent of Americans who support making “significant changes” to Social Security (Gallup). 66 percent of Americans said they were very worried about “not having enough money for retirement,” making it the issue that the largest number of Americans are concerned about (Gallup). |
| Tweet This | Tell Congress: Keep #SocialSecurity out of a debt deal—it doesn’t contribute a penny to the deficit! #smarttalk via @OurFuture Raise retirement age? Easy to say if you sit at a desk all day & have a congressional pension. #NotSoGrandBargain #smarttalk via @OurFuture Instead of cutting #SocialSecurity, make millionaires pay the same rate as the rest of us. #Fairness #smarttalk via @OurFuture |
| Learn More | » Strengthen Social Security Campaign resources page: the Strengthen Social Security Campaign’s database of fact sheets and reports. » Economic Policy Institute’s Retirement research page » Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Social Security and retirement issue page |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)