Super-Committee

After the Thanksgiving feast, some lament how quickly the focus shifts to next round of holidays – but I have to admit I embrace it. Christmas music in the air 24/7? Fine by me. My tree is up, the house is bright with twinkly lights, and I’m thrilled to exchange my typical coffee order at Starbucks to a peppermint mocha in a bright red cup.

Sadly, I can usually count on some Members of Congress to put a damper on my holiday spirit. Just this Sunday, as I was trying to get a head start on trimming the tree, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) was on “This Week,” saying he was “terribly disappointed” that the super-committee (of which he was a member) did not agree on a deficit reduction plan along the lines of his proposal – a proposal that would cut taxes for the highest-income earners while forcing lower-income families to bear both harsh program cuts and substantial tax increases. (Needless to say, we at NWLC were not disappointed that Sen. Toomey’s plan did not win over a majority on the super-committee.) Read more »

The super-committee could not agree on a plan to cut the deficit by $1.2 to $1.5 trillion. Some in the media are calling it a failure – but we’re relieved that there were members who rejected plans that were unbalanced and unfair. Here are five reasons why:

1. The most immediate deficit the nation faces is the lack of jobs—and further spending cuts would have made that deficit worse.

   Yes, the nation faces a long-term fiscal imbalance. But the most urgent economic problem is unemployment. Since the “recovery” started in June 2009, the job market has made only modest gains— unemployment is still at 9 percent—and women have actually lost jobs, largely because cuts to public sector services have disproportionately eliminated jobs held by women. More spending cuts would have meant more job losses. In contrast, providing more help to struggling families boosts the economy, and thus can help reduce long-term deficits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending emergency unemployment insurance and providing additional refundable tax credits in 2012 for lower and moderate-income people “would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost.” And growing the economy reduces the fiscal deficit as well as the jobs deficit; workers with jobs need less from safety net programs and pay more in taxes.

Congressional coverage this week has focused on the continuing debate in the super-committee and the just-passed spending bill that counts tomato paste on pizza as a vegetable in school lunches. It’s hardly a wonder that Congress’s recent approval ratings have been as low as 9 percent; more people approve of turning the U.S. into a communist country than approve of the job Congress is doing.

But there really are Members of Congress who are trying to do the right thing for the country – like helping the nearly 14 million women and men who are unemployed. Last week, I wrote about the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act, which would maintain vital federal unemployment benefits for workers who have been unemployed for more than six months. And this week, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Pathways Back to Work Act (S. 1861), a bill that would create employment and training opportunities for jobless workers, including those who have exhausted UI benefits or who have insufficient work experience or earnings to qualify for UI. (Rep. George Miller has introduced a similar bill, H.R. 3425, in the House.)

The $5 billion Pathways Back to Work Fund established by the bill includes: Read more »

Do you live in Arizona, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Washington? If so, call 1-866-251-4044 today to tell your senator on the super-committee to oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the super-committee.

If you’re a resident of one of the states above, we need your help. Senators Kyl, Kerry, Baucus, Portman, Toomey, and Murray are all members of the very powerful congressional super-committee charged with deciding how to cut the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Time is short — the committee faces a deadline of November 23 — and the stakes are high.

Various proposals before the super-committee would reduce Social Security benefits and cut Medicare and Medicaid by as much as $685 billion. Each of these vital programs provides income security and health care to millions of Americans — mostly women.

Your senator needs to hear from you now! Over the next couple of weeks, the handful of members on the super-committee will decide the fate of these and other vital programs. Read more »

Despite dreary weather yesterday afternoon, the rally in support of House Resolution 72 persevered outside the Capitol building. To catch you up, Representative John Conyer Jr.’s (D-MI) resolution opposes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The rally was comprised of a multitudinous array of advocates and supporters, including representatives from NOW, AAUW and NWLC. The crowd was clearly passionate in their support of these vital programs. Signs boasted slogans ranging from, “Social Security: A Shared Commitment Across the Generations,” to “Hands Off My Medicare & Medicaid,” to “Women Depend on Medicare!” Additionally, various pieces of literature were circulated as to educate the participants further. Read more »

The deadline for the super-committee to produce its deficit-reduction plan is fast approaching, and cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are reportedly on the table.

Since large majorities of voters across party lines oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit —including self-described “fiscally conservative” voters, as well as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – we’re particularly concerned that policy makers might try to disguise painful benefit cuts as merely technical changes. So we’ve explained how changing the way the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is calculated for Social Security is not a more accurate way to measure inflation, but a “stealth” benefit cut that would especially hurt women. Read more »

There’s some good news today from the Social Security Administration: After two years of no cost of living adjustment (COLA), there will be a cost of living increase of 3.6 percent for 2012. But because health care costs are rising even faster than overall inflation, the increase is less than it first appears, especially for women.

Medicare premiums are deducted from Social Security, and they’re rising too. The increase in Medicare premiums will eat up much of the increase from the COLA, especially for those with modest benefits, who are disproportionately women. (However, the poorest beneficiaries – also mostly women – will be protected from the increased premiums because Medicaid pays their Medicare premiums.)

Rapid medical inflation also means increased out-of-pocket health costs. Because women face higher out-of-pocket medical costs than men and have lower incomes, rapid medical inflation hurts them even more. Read more »

Most of the work of the congressional super-committee (officially, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction) is going on behind closed doors – but reports are leaking out. And the word is that some members of the super-committee are targeting programs for low-income people for cuts. Today’s post focuses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) – but Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Medicare, and other vital programs are also threatened, and we’ll have more to say about them as the committee continues its work. Read more »

A new report by the Institute for Policy Studies reveals that of last year’s 100 highest-paid corporate CEOs, 25 took home more than their company paid in 2010 federal income taxes. The report found that these corporate chief executives – CEOs of International Paper Company, Prudential, General Electric, Verizon, Boeing, and eBay, among others -- averaged $16.7 million in pay. At the same time, a combination of tax shelters and loopholes allowed those companies to avoid an average of more than $400 million each in federal taxes.    Read more »