Janet Witt, Grassroots Manager
National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare
202/216-8341
800/998-0181
March 7, 2008 Update
Dear Friends,
The House and Senate finished work on the budget yesterday and will bring their resolutions to the floor next week. Most of the action, with amendments, we expect to happen in the Senate. The Senate amendment of concern is the DeMint amendment. (Please read below) It is really about private accounts, not protecting the Social Security surplus.
Congress will break for a two week recess after next week, so they may choose to leave the biggest budget decisions for the next President.
The IRS just came out with the Stimulus package web site referring people to private companies, who will help fill out the form. (for a fee) Advise people they can get the forms at their public Library.
1. How to access the Stimulus forms from the IRS
2. The DeMint Amendment
3. The National Committee letter to the Senate on the DeMint Amendment
4. Call it a "Commission" or a "Task Force" but please don't lump Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid together under the umbrella of "Entitlements!"
5. A National Committee letter to the Senate on setting up a "Commission."
6. An interview with John McCain.
7. A Press Release on the President's budget and Medicare.
8. "Caring for an Aging America Act." (We support)
9. Medicare marketing practices.
_____________________________________
**********************************************************

IRS: Use 'Free File' to Receive Rebate
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 6, 2008
Filed at 6:52 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- People who do not normally file a tax return can now use the IRS Free File program to get their economic stimulus package payment, the Internal Revenue Service said Thursday.

The tax agency said people filing for no reason other than to get their payments should use those companies listed on the IRS website, http://www.irs.gov/"www.irs.gov, at Free File - Economic Stimulus Payment.

Some 97 million taxpayers with incomes of $54,000 or less are eligible for Free File, under which 19 companies offer free preparation and electronic filing to the IRS.
Individuals can receive between $300 and $600, and married couples from $600 to $1,200, under the economic stimulus act. Parents may also qualify for a $300 payment for each eligible child younger than 17.
To qualify, individuals and families must have at least $3,000 of income from a combination of earned income and other sources such as Social Security retirement or disability benefits or Veterans Administration survivor benefits.
But people must file a tax return to receive a payment.

*********************************************************

CQ BUDGET TRACKER NEWS
March 4, 2008 – 12:35 a.m.
Sen. Jim DeMint said yesterday that he will offer an amendment on the floor to prevent the use of Social Security surpluses for other government activities. DeMint says estimates by the Social Security Administration show that Congress will use $452 billion in funds collected for Social Security for other purposes between 2009 and 2013. In the last 20 years, Congress has already “raided” $2 trillion from Social Security, including interest, BTNEWS said in a release. “Politicians in Congress are using Enron-styled accounting, but if this were done in the private sector they’d be sent to jail.” His amendment will propose three requirements for any legislation considered under the budget: that Social Security surpluses be used to pay for program benefits; that no changes to benefits are made for those born before Jan. 1, 1951; and that the United States begin pre-funding Social Security and “provide workers with the benefits of savings and investment.”
Opponents of Social Security “privatization” criticized DeMint’s proposal. “Sen. DeMint has tried and failed several times to pass legislation that would use the Social Security Trust Funds to pay for private accounts which ultimately would result in cutting Social Security benefits and increasing the federal debt,” said Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and former ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee. “Americans have already rejected the scare tactics and risky proposals from private accounts proponents. This time is no different.” The Social Security Trustees will give their annual update of the program’s finances this month or next. In their last report, they said the annual cost of Social Security will begin to exceed tax income in 2017.
Dear Senator:
When the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Resolution comes to the Floor, Senator DeMint is likely to once again offer his amendment to facilitate the privatization of Social Security. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare strongly opposes this measure.
The DeMint amendment would make room in the Budget Resolution for legislation creating Social Security private accounts. Like the failed Bush privatization plan, the DeMint plan would divert money out of Social Security to fund private accounts, increase federal outlays, cut guaranteed Social Security benefits significantly, and leave future retirees at increased risk for a secure retirement.
Contrary to Senator DeMint’s assertion that his plan would be beneficial to Social Security by “stopping the raid” on the Trust Fund, the measure would in fact cause significant harm. It would do nothing to improve Social Security’s solvency and would continue to allow funds to be spent for purposes other than Social Security.
Specifically, the DeMint proposal:
Would be the first step toward privatizing Social Security. Every dollar taken out of Social Security and placed into private accounts brings us one step closer to dismantling Social Security.
Would not prevent Social Security surpluses from being used to fund other government programs. Because the DeMint surplus-funded private accounts could only be invested initially in U. S. Treasury bonds, the government would continue to use the Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs.
Would increase the public debt. The Social Security actuaries have said about this proposal that it would add about $1 trillion to the national debt in just 10 years. The cost of this increased debt would be borne by every generation for at least the next 75 years.
Would replace Social Security benefits with risky private accounts that could result in lower income for beneficiaries. Social Security benefits would be reduced by an amount specified in the law regardless of the returns received on the private account.
A similar amendment by Senator DeMint was offered to last year’s budget resolution and was rejected. The million of members and supporters of the National Committee, who are concerned about the retirement security of all Americans, urge you to reject the DeMint amendment once again.

*************************************************************

March 5, 2008
Senior citizens will lose if Jim Cooper's 'entitlements' plan is adopted
By BARBARA B. KENNELLY
It would seem that The Tennessean has been caught in the "entitlements" net cast by President Bush and his allies in Congress, including Rep. Jim Cooper ("President's Medicare Plan still looks like weak remedy," Feb. 29).
What Rep. Cooper has proposed is an entitlement task force that lumps together Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, programs that encompass significantly different economic issues and touch virtually every facet of American life. Under the Cooper proposal, their future would be placed in the hands of a group of only 16 people who may or may not have significant experience in the breadth of issues they encompass.
Medicare and Social Security are critical lifelines for America's seniors. Seniors deserve to have changes to these programs receive substantive consideration by members of the committees who best understand their intricacies.
Major changes to these programs also deserve to be considered by Congress under a normal, open legislative process. The Cooper plan would bypass these important protections. If it is adopted, America's seniors will be the big losers.
Other proposals may "nibble at the edges" but the Cooper entitlement commission will set up a process enabling opponents to gnaw these programs to the bone._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*************************************************************

March 4, 2008
The United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator:
As the Senate begins considering the 2009 Budget Resolution, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare would like to reaffirm the strong opposition of our millions of members and supporters to any form of entitlement commission or task force considered by this Congress.
We strongly oppose creating a commission in 2008. A new President, regardless of party, should be given the opportunity to pursue his or her own priorities and policies in these areas without the shadow cast by a report the new Administration did not participate in designing.
We further oppose the creation of any commission that is allowed to consider privatizing Social Security among its options. Social Security private accounts have been soundly rejected by the American public. Privatization would dismantle our nation’s most successful program of social insurance and would do nothing to improve solvency. Private accounts have no place in any conversation intended to strengthen or improve Social Security for future generations. Any commission that does not specifically preclude private accounts will certainly be interpreted by America’s seniors as a backdoor means for resurrecting this failed plan.
We believe a commission that focuses on Social Security and Medicare in the context of the federal budget, with little regard for the critical role these programs play in the income adequacy of future retirees, is inherently biased and will inevitably result in a significant reduction in our nation’s commitment to the elderly.
Finally, we believe that Social Security and Medicare are better suited for consideration individually, so Members can better review their impact on America’s retirement security.
On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee, we urge you to oppose any entitlement commission or task force considered this year.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
********************************************************

WSJ
'I'm Always for Less Regulation'
McCain's Economic Thinking March 3, 2008; Page A14
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, spoke with The Wall Street Journal's Bob Davis about his opinions on the economy. Below are edited excerpts. WSJ: With oil prices soaring and housing prices dropping, what should the federal government do to ease economic problems?
Sen. John McCain: I'd obviously like to see lower interest rates. I would go very public in advocating that the tax cuts be made permanent, otherwise Americans are looking forward to a tax increase at a vulnerable time in our economy. I would call for the elimination of the AMT [alternative minimum tax]. And we absolutely need to reduce corporate tax rates, which are the second highest in the world.
I would also look at other ways to stimulate the economy. I would call for a meaningful -- and I mean meaningful -- approach to simplifying the tax code so that it's fairer and flatter. And I might even have a couple of fireside chats with the American people because of what we see in the confidence barometers.
Q: What about measures that would have a shorter-term impact?
A: In the shorter term, if you somehow told American businesses and families, "Look, you're not going to experience a tax increase in 2010," I think that's a pretty good short-term measure. And as far as confidence is concerned, I think if you say, "Congress is going to cut corporate taxes right away," if you say that you've got a plan to eliminate the AMT, I think some of those are kind of short-term measures right now.
Q: On ABC's "This Week" on Feb. 17, in response to a question, "Are you a 'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes?" you replied, "No new taxes." Did you mean that literally?
A: I'm not making a "read my lips" statement in that I will not raise taxes. But I'm not saying I can envision a scenario where I would, OK? But I'm not making it a centerpiece in my campaign.
I want lower taxes. I want the family to keep more of their money.
Q: In 2000, you campaigned for president on a plan to use a part of payroll taxes to create Social Security private accounts. Now your Web site talks about accounts as "supplements" to Social Security. Why the change?
A: Actually, I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts and I think they are an important opportunity for young workers. I campaigned in support of President Bush's proposal and I campaigned with him, and I did town hall meetings with him.
Q: Your Web site says something different.
A: I'll correct any policy paper that I've put out that might intimate that personal savings accounts are not a very important factor. They allow young workers to provide for their retirement, and a much larger retirement over time.
The way I would fix Social Security is to sit down with Republicans and Democrats together at a table, voicing my opposition to tax increases, and sitting down and negotiating a fix to Social Security, which is the only way that Social Security is going to be fixed. That's my solution to the Social Security system.
Q: You're focusing greatly on deficit reduction. What do you think the economic gain would be? When Bill Clinton pushed for a deficit-reduction pact, long-term interest rates were high. Now they're already low.
A: I believe a fundamental principle of economics is that no family, business, or government in the world can spend more money than they take in without sooner or later paying a price for it. So deficits over time do raise interest rates, both short term and long term. Deficits over time force us to borrow from other countries such as China, and it reduces our ability to have the flexibility when there is a need, such as there is now, in difficult economic times, to aid our economy.
Of course I want to reduce the deficit and of course I want to make long-term fixes for our economy so that we can have a safe and sound economic future, but right now my priority is to do everything in my power to see that we restore some economic stability. And frankly the economy is of great concern right now. So that's my highest priority.
Q: You're proposing very expensive tax cuts while only enumerating small specific spending reductions, such as eliminating earmarks. Are you worried your numbers don't add up?
A: If you just look at two spending bills that the president signed into law, there's $35 billion just in those two bills [that could be cut]. I saved the taxpayers over $6 billion on one Air Force tanker deal. I'm not worried about being able to find savings in government.
Q: In 1995, when the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress, you proposed a regulatory moratorium, but couldn't get it passed. Would you declare such a moratorium if you were president?
A: I'm always for less regulation. But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight.
As far as a need for additional regulations are concerned, I think that depends on the legislative agenda and what the Congress does to some degree, but I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a moratorium.
I've thought more on the area of deregulation rather than a moratorium.
Q: Do you think it's appropriate as president to state your views on interest rates or the dollar?
A: From an economic and political standpoint I favor, obviously, lower interest rates, but the Fed is an independent agency of government and I would not pretend to try to tell the Federal Reserve what policies they should enact.
I think that it's appropriate for me to state my views. But I think presidents have to be careful. Frankly, now that I think about it, I think presidents have to be careful so that they're not perceived as putting undue political pressure on the Fed. So I would certainly be more careful than I am today.
Q: You and Sen. Joseph Lieberman have long pushed for a cap-and-trade system to combat global warming. Auctioning emission permits, as you bill would do, could raise huge amounts of revenue, similar to a tax. What would you use the money for?
A: I hear this interesting argument that somehow this would cost more money to our economy. I am absolutely convinced that innovation, technology, and using the entrepreneurship of America will come up with
______________________________________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************

THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
~ Celebrating 25 Years of Advocacy for Older Americans ~
March 4, 2008
NEWS RELEASE
National Seniors Groups Urge Budget Committees to Craft Their Own Medicare Budget
Letter to Congress Details Fatal Flaws in the President’s Plan
"The President’s budget does nothing to strengthen or improve Medicare over the long term. Instead, it offers a single-minded strategy of massive cuts for providers and higher costs to seniors while also protecting billions in insurance industry subsidies. This budget couldn’t be more out-of-touch with what’s truly needed to strengthen Medicare for future generations. Congress needs to start from scratch."...Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO - The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Eight of the nation’s leading seniors and advocacy groups, representing millions of American retirees and their families, have urged the Chairmen and members of the House and Senate Budget Committees to scrap the President’s budget proposals for Medicare.
"The President’s Medicare proposals call for massive cuts to providers and increased cost-sharing for beneficiaries, while continuing lavish overpayments to private plans. The overpayments burden taxpayers and undermine the traditional Medicare program. We urge Congress to reject these cuts and corporate subsidies. It is high time to return Medicare's focus to people rather than profits."… Judith Stein, Executive Director - Center for Medicare Advocacy
A letter sent to Congress today and signed by the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Families USA, the Medicare Rights Center, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Older Women’s League details four key concerns with President Bush’s budget. They are:
An expansion of Medicare means-testing would increase beneficiary premiums, create costly problems for beneficiaries, and undermine the social insurance nature of Medicare.
The arbitrary cap on general revenue financing of Medicare ignores Medicare’s financing structure and limits meaningful reform.
Medicare savings should be achieved by equalizing payments to private Medicare Advantage plans.
The budget resolution should provide resources for necessary Medicare improvements.
"The President’s budget proposal targets the most vulnerable – seniors who need Medicare to afford to see a doctor – in favor of sustaining the record profits enjoyed by big drug and insurance companies. Only in Washington could this be the work of a 'compassionate conservative.' This misguided proposal continues the Bush administration's legacy of sacrificing older Americans’ health care needs for the benefit of large corporations."...George Kourpias, President - Alliance for Retired Americans
A copy of the entire letter to Congress can be found online at http://www.ncpssm.org/
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
****************************************************************

Senator Boxer Introduces Legislation To Help Address Critical Shortage In Health Care Workers For Older Americans
By newsdesk - Posted on March 5th, 2008
March 4, 2008 -- Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today introduced the Caring for an Aging America Act, legislation aimed at addressing the crisis in providing care for a senior population that is projected to almost double over the next 25 years.
Senator Boxer said, “When our mothers and fathers and grandparents reach their golden years, they deserve quality care for their health and long-term care needs. But the medical and health community is already struggling to meet the demand for geriatric health care and support services, and the need for trained professionals is only growing. This legislation will provide incentives to help encourage qualified practitioners to join the geriatrics and gerontology fields.”
The Caring for an Aging America Act would provide $130 million in federal funding over five years to attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct-care workers by providing them with loan forgiveness and career advancement opportunities.
Specifically, Boxer’s legislation would link educational loan repayment to a service commitment to the aging population. The bill would establish the Geriatric and Gerontology Loan Repayment Program for physicians, physician assistants, advance practice nurses, psychologists, and social workers who complete specialty training in geriatrics or gerontology and agree to provide full-time clinical practice and service to older adults for a minimum of two years. It would also expand eligibility for the Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program to include registered nurses who complete specialty training and provide nursing services to older adults in long-term care settings.
This bill would expand career advancement opportunities for nursing and direct care workers by offering specialty training in long-term care services through the existing Career Ladders Grants Program. The measure would also create a Health and Long-Term Care Workforce Advisory Panel for an Aging America to examine and advise the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and Congress on workforce issues related to health and long-term care for the aging population.
According to the Alliance for Aging Research, proper geriatric care could reduce hospital, nursing home, and home care costs by at least 10 percent a year, saving $267 billion in 2020. The aging population in America is estimated to double from 36 million today to nearly 72 million by 2030.
The Boxer bill is endorsed by the American Geriatrics Society, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, The Alliance for Retired Americans, National Council on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association, Council on Social Work Education, Alliance for Aging Research, OWL-The Voice of Midlife and Older Women, National Association for Geriatric Education, National Association of Geriatric Centers, and National Association of Social Workers.

*****************************************************************

Baucus, ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other committee members met with health insurance company executives and representatives from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry’s trade group, on Monday to discuss marketing abuses under Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D.
“AHIP and the insurers came in with strong proposals to stop abusive tactics like cold calls and financial inducements to bribe seniors into private Medicare plans they don’t want or need. The Finance Committee will want to go further to protect seniors,” Baucus said after the meeting.
In response to scrutiny from lawmakers and consumer advocates, AHIP announced its support for ending certain marketing practices and for increased oversight of the independent insurance agents and brokers who sell plans to Medicare beneficiaries. “Seniors need to have complete confidence that they will be given the information they need to make the Medicare coverage decision that is best for them,” AHIP President and CEO Karen Ignagni said.
Baucus said he also intends to write legislation forbidding agents and brokers from visiting beneficiaries at home without explicit invitations and from offering gifts or meals to get people to attend sales pitches. He also wants to expand the authority of state insurance regulators to complement federal oversight.
Last year, Baucus unsuccessfully sought to add stricter marketing rules for private plans participating in Medicare. He also tried to reduce the subsidies paid to the plans, which cost the government more per beneficiary than it would to enroll them in traditional Medicare. Baucus is expected to continue pushing to reduce that spending but faces resistance from Senate Republicans and a veto threat from President Bush.
The assurances from the health insurance industry were met with skepticism by a critic of the role of private health plans in the Medicare program.