Social Security / Healthcare
SOCIAL SECURITY
Playing Politics
The Social Security Administration is intended to act as a neutral body, administering the program while staying well above the muck of partisan politics and policy debates. Thanks to the Bush administration, that's no longer the case. According to the New York Times, the Social Security Administration recently developed a new "tactical plan" to help the White House market its all-out campaign to convince Americans the system is in crisis. Internal documents show Social Security officials told employees to get the word out that "Social Security's long-term financing problems are serious and need to be addressed soon." The new crisis-marketing plan also said Social Security managers should "discuss solvency issues at staff meetings," "insert solvency messages in all Social Security publications" and spread the word at places like farmers' markets and "big box retail stores." Another internal document "encourages the agency's public affairs specialists to spread the word that 'Social Security reform is a presidential priority' and personal accounts are an essential element of his approach." Agency employees mindful of the agency's independent position have complained to officials that "they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program."
THE DECLARATION OF AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY: The Social Security Administration is supposed to work outside the realm of partisan politics. In 1994, Congress passed legislation to establish a three-person, independent oversight board for the agency, removing it from the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services, which operates as part of the politically minded White House. Sen. Patrick Moynihan, the bill's author, cheered its passage, saying, "With this bill we hope to increase public confidence in Social Security…by insulating the program from politics." The bipartisan bill – which passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate – was supported across the board by nearly every organization with an interest in Social Security, including the AARP, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the AFL-CIO.
WHITE HOUSE CONFIRMATION: This weekend, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett was asked about using the Social Security Administration to help the president convince Americans the system is in crisis. He replied, "There is no expectation that career employees would be asked to advocate on behalf of any specific prescription for Social Security." Look closely – that's a non-denial. True, the Social Security Administration stops short of directly advocating the "specific" White House plan. It does, however, cite the findings of a plan similar to the president's. And whipping up public fears about the nonexistent crisis adds to the drumbeat, assisting the president in scaring up public support for his privatization plan.
NOT THE FACTS, MA'AM: The Social Security Administration claims warning Americans the current system is in danger is merely a factual message. Not so, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. According to its independent assessment, Social Security will be able to pay all benefits through 2052. Even after this date, the CBO found, the program will be able to pay a higher benefit than that received by current retirees.
SQUANDERING THE TRUST FUND: Under White House control, the Social Security Administration uses money from the trust fund to pay for propaganda claiming that the program is in crisis. (This is similar to the way the administration diverted money from the critically underfunded No Child Left Behind Act to pay conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to shill for its education policy.) Dana Duggins, of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, stressed that "Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda."
LEAVING OUT THE DISABLED: Another point to keep in mind: Social Security is crucial to more than the retired. AP reports, "Disability benefits may not be safe from the across-the-board cuts that are likely in President Bush's proposal to allow personal investment accounts in the Social Security program." Today, an estimated 16 percent of Americans receiving Social Security benefits are disabled workers and their dependents. Disabled beneficiaries typically have worked less and need benefits sooner; cutting their benefits leaves them without income. The impact of accounts on beneficiaries who aren't retirees, however, "has not been publicly discussed by the Bush administration."
HEALTH CARE
Leavitt's Conflicting Interests
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) nominee Mike Leavitt has strong family ties to the 27th largest insurance broker in the U.S., Leavitt Group Enterprises, which operates in areas – like medical malpractice insurance – that Leavitt has signaled will be important parts of his agenda. Leavitt used to serve as chief operating officer and retains a substantial financial interest in the family insurance firm, now run by his brother, Dane Leavitt, and staffed by several members of his family. Leavitt also has substantial financial interests in other companies directly affected by decisions he would be making as head of HHS, including Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. (the maker of the controversial painkiller, Vioxx). At confirmation hearings on Wednesday, Congress should ask Leavitt how he plans to deal with his multiple conflicts of interest. Below are some other questions Congress should ask Mike Leavitt. (For a full list of questions, click here.)
DO YOU OPPOSE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO CUT FEDERAL MEDICAID FUNDING?: Bush administration officials have indicated that Medicaid, the nation's health care program for the poor, may be "headed for the chopping block in 2005 as President Bush and Congress look for ways to cut the federal budget deficit." In 1997, as governor of Utah, Leavitt adamantly opposed federal government spending cuts that left states footing the bill for Medicaid, telling Congress, "states strongly oppose federal spending caps on Medicaid…because they would force states to pick up extra costs." With states already facing a "projected shortfall of nearly $40 billion going into 2005," Congress should ask Leavitt whether he will stand up for federal funding for Medicaid and its vital protections for poor, disabled and elderly Americans.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT LEGISLATION ENABLING HHS TO NEGOTIATE LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES?: The Medicare reform law signed by President Bush in 2003 specifically prohibits HHS from negotiating with drug companies to obtain lower prices for beneficiaries, as is done in Canada and other nations. As a result, when the law goes into effect, taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to spend much more for drugs than they should. The legislation favors – surprise! – the pharmaceutical industry, which "deployed nearly 700 lobbyists" to kill any plans that would allow HHS to negotiate lower drug prices. Current HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson recently stated he "would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate" with drug makers on prices. And 80 percent of Americans agree the law should be changed "to allow the federal government to use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies."
IF CONFIRMED, WOULD YOU ADVOCATE – AS YOU DID AS GOVERNOR OF UTAH – RESTRICTING SERVICES FOR THE POOREST MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES?: As governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt sponsored a controversial Medicaid waiver program, which the Bush administration has touted as a way for states to deal with budget shortfalls. But the waiver program is far from an adequate solution to the problem: it works by siphoning benefits from the poorest beneficiaries to pay for the extension of a "narrow benefit package" (for instance, Utah's program doesn't include hospital coverage) to some adults not previously eligible for Medicaid. Families USA Director Ron Pollack said the program was "like robbing Peter and Paul to pay Phil…It will result in many thousands of low-income people being placed at risk of losing their Medicaid lifeline."
DID YOU SUPPORT THE WHITE HOUSE'S DECISION IN 2004 TO TAKE MONEY ALLOTTED FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS AWAY FROM STATES AND RETURN IT TO THE U.S. TREASURY?: On 9/30/04, the deadline for Congress to act on preserving $1.1 billion in federal funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was allowed to expire. The money was taken away from the states and returned to the U.S. Treasury. Apparently unmoved by Census data citing a dramatic increase in the number of children living in poverty, the White House, over the objections of the National Governors Association and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, failed to take the simple step of asking that Congress extend the time states had to use the funds in the 2005 budget. The move could have insured an additional 750,000 children.
Playing Politics
The Social Security Administration is intended to act as a neutral body, administering the program while staying well above the muck of partisan politics and policy debates. Thanks to the Bush administration, that's no longer the case. According to the New York Times, the Social Security Administration recently developed a new "tactical plan" to help the White House market its all-out campaign to convince Americans the system is in crisis. Internal documents show Social Security officials told employees to get the word out that "Social Security's long-term financing problems are serious and need to be addressed soon." The new crisis-marketing plan also said Social Security managers should "discuss solvency issues at staff meetings," "insert solvency messages in all Social Security publications" and spread the word at places like farmers' markets and "big box retail stores." Another internal document "encourages the agency's public affairs specialists to spread the word that 'Social Security reform is a presidential priority' and personal accounts are an essential element of his approach." Agency employees mindful of the agency's independent position have complained to officials that "they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program."
THE DECLARATION OF AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY: The Social Security Administration is supposed to work outside the realm of partisan politics. In 1994, Congress passed legislation to establish a three-person, independent oversight board for the agency, removing it from the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services, which operates as part of the politically minded White House. Sen. Patrick Moynihan, the bill's author, cheered its passage, saying, "With this bill we hope to increase public confidence in Social Security…by insulating the program from politics." The bipartisan bill – which passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate – was supported across the board by nearly every organization with an interest in Social Security, including the AARP, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and the AFL-CIO.
WHITE HOUSE CONFIRMATION: This weekend, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett was asked about using the Social Security Administration to help the president convince Americans the system is in crisis. He replied, "There is no expectation that career employees would be asked to advocate on behalf of any specific prescription for Social Security." Look closely – that's a non-denial. True, the Social Security Administration stops short of directly advocating the "specific" White House plan. It does, however, cite the findings of a plan similar to the president's. And whipping up public fears about the nonexistent crisis adds to the drumbeat, assisting the president in scaring up public support for his privatization plan.
NOT THE FACTS, MA'AM: The Social Security Administration claims warning Americans the current system is in danger is merely a factual message. Not so, says the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. According to its independent assessment, Social Security will be able to pay all benefits through 2052. Even after this date, the CBO found, the program will be able to pay a higher benefit than that received by current retirees.
SQUANDERING THE TRUST FUND: Under White House control, the Social Security Administration uses money from the trust fund to pay for propaganda claiming that the program is in crisis. (This is similar to the way the administration diverted money from the critically underfunded No Child Left Behind Act to pay conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to shill for its education policy.) Dana Duggins, of the Social Security Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, stressed that "Trust fund dollars should not be used to promote a political agenda."
LEAVING OUT THE DISABLED: Another point to keep in mind: Social Security is crucial to more than the retired. AP reports, "Disability benefits may not be safe from the across-the-board cuts that are likely in President Bush's proposal to allow personal investment accounts in the Social Security program." Today, an estimated 16 percent of Americans receiving Social Security benefits are disabled workers and their dependents. Disabled beneficiaries typically have worked less and need benefits sooner; cutting their benefits leaves them without income. The impact of accounts on beneficiaries who aren't retirees, however, "has not been publicly discussed by the Bush administration."
HEALTH CARE
Leavitt's Conflicting Interests
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) nominee Mike Leavitt has strong family ties to the 27th largest insurance broker in the U.S., Leavitt Group Enterprises, which operates in areas – like medical malpractice insurance – that Leavitt has signaled will be important parts of his agenda. Leavitt used to serve as chief operating officer and retains a substantial financial interest in the family insurance firm, now run by his brother, Dane Leavitt, and staffed by several members of his family. Leavitt also has substantial financial interests in other companies directly affected by decisions he would be making as head of HHS, including Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. (the maker of the controversial painkiller, Vioxx). At confirmation hearings on Wednesday, Congress should ask Leavitt how he plans to deal with his multiple conflicts of interest. Below are some other questions Congress should ask Mike Leavitt. (For a full list of questions, click here.)
DO YOU OPPOSE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO CUT FEDERAL MEDICAID FUNDING?: Bush administration officials have indicated that Medicaid, the nation's health care program for the poor, may be "headed for the chopping block in 2005 as President Bush and Congress look for ways to cut the federal budget deficit." In 1997, as governor of Utah, Leavitt adamantly opposed federal government spending cuts that left states footing the bill for Medicaid, telling Congress, "states strongly oppose federal spending caps on Medicaid…because they would force states to pick up extra costs." With states already facing a "projected shortfall of nearly $40 billion going into 2005," Congress should ask Leavitt whether he will stand up for federal funding for Medicaid and its vital protections for poor, disabled and elderly Americans.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT LEGISLATION ENABLING HHS TO NEGOTIATE LOWER PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES?: The Medicare reform law signed by President Bush in 2003 specifically prohibits HHS from negotiating with drug companies to obtain lower prices for beneficiaries, as is done in Canada and other nations. As a result, when the law goes into effect, taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries will be forced to spend much more for drugs than they should. The legislation favors – surprise! – the pharmaceutical industry, which "deployed nearly 700 lobbyists" to kill any plans that would allow HHS to negotiate lower drug prices. Current HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson recently stated he "would like to have had the opportunity to negotiate" with drug makers on prices. And 80 percent of Americans agree the law should be changed "to allow the federal government to use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies."
IF CONFIRMED, WOULD YOU ADVOCATE – AS YOU DID AS GOVERNOR OF UTAH – RESTRICTING SERVICES FOR THE POOREST MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES?: As governor of Utah, Mike Leavitt sponsored a controversial Medicaid waiver program, which the Bush administration has touted as a way for states to deal with budget shortfalls. But the waiver program is far from an adequate solution to the problem: it works by siphoning benefits from the poorest beneficiaries to pay for the extension of a "narrow benefit package" (for instance, Utah's program doesn't include hospital coverage) to some adults not previously eligible for Medicaid. Families USA Director Ron Pollack said the program was "like robbing Peter and Paul to pay Phil…It will result in many thousands of low-income people being placed at risk of losing their Medicaid lifeline."
DID YOU SUPPORT THE WHITE HOUSE'S DECISION IN 2004 TO TAKE MONEY ALLOTTED FOR CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS AWAY FROM STATES AND RETURN IT TO THE U.S. TREASURY?: On 9/30/04, the deadline for Congress to act on preserving $1.1 billion in federal funds for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was allowed to expire. The money was taken away from the states and returned to the U.S. Treasury. Apparently unmoved by Census data citing a dramatic increase in the number of children living in poverty, the White House, over the objections of the National Governors Association and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, failed to take the simple step of asking that Congress extend the time states had to use the funds in the 2005 budget. The move could have insured an additional 750,000 children.
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 11:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home