News Release

HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER SHOULD NOT JOIN REPUBLICANS IN TARGETING SOCIAL SECURITY, SAYS PROGRESSIVE LEADER

Toby Chaudhuri — Fri, 08 May 2009 07:49:31 -0700

WASHINGTON – Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage today said that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will get burned if he insists on stepping on Social Security, the “third rail of American politics.” .

Rep. Hoyer said on Wednesday that Congress should change the Social Security system to “bring in more revenues,” “restrain the growth of benefits” and possibly “raise the retirement age,” Rep. Hoyer proposed the creation of a special commission to develop Social Security legislation detailing cuts which would receive fast track treatment – an up-or-down vote in both chambers of Congress with no amendments.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BOROSAGE

Rep. Hoyer wants to put cuts in Social Security benefits on the table. He argues that cutting Social Security benefits will help address America’s long term deficits. This is bad policy and worse politics.

In reality, America does not have an entitlements problem. It has a broken health care system. The entirety of our long term debt problem is caused by soaring health care costs.

Social Security has a surplus. That means today’s workers have already prepaid their retirement. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Social Security, by drawing down its trust fund, will be able to pay benefits until the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Fixing health care means taking on the insurance companies, no easy task. But that is no reason to go after Social Security which is not the cause of the problem and cannot provide the solution.

American workers have paid a regressive Social Security payroll tax throughout their lives with the understanding that they’d get a secure floor for their retirement. The payroll tax was increased in 1983 with the understanding that a surplus would be built up and then paid down to pay for the boomers. A deal is a deal. It would be a gross injustice for the nation to break its contract with workers by increasing the payroll tax on average Americans or cutting their Social Security benefits. Congress may have squandered that money on tax cuts to the wealthy or bailouts of the banks. That may require progressive tax reform. It does not require shafting the workers who played by the rules.

This is also ruinous politics. Americans have lost more than $15 trillion in housing and stock wealth, with the great bulk of the losses being incurred by people age 45 and older. At a time when Americans are shattered by the loss in their retirement savings, Rep. Hoyer would add to their insecurity by calling for cutting the one benefit that is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government – Social Security.

To suggest that the retirement age be lifted suggests Rep. Hoyer simply is out of touch. Most people will now have to work far past retirement age simply to make ends meet. What Rep. Hoyer is suggesting is that he will deprive them of any retirement support during that period. It is hard to imagine anything more destructive of Democrats’ claim to be the party of working Americans than to propose pushing that reform through the Congress on a fast track.

Retirement security is an essential part of the American Dream. Today, less than half of workers participate in any retirement plan at work; only a fraction of them have access to a traditional kind of pension that guarantees income in retirement. The rest have savings in their homes and retirement accounts that have just been devastated in the Great Recession. Democrats should be talking about increasing Social Security payments to help lift the economy out of its decline, not reducing them to pay off long term deficits that are caused by our broken health care system. Keep on this track, Rep. Hoyer, and you will get badly burned

# # #

CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS DELIVER A PROGRESSIVE MANDATE

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:00:00 -0800

WASHINGTON – Twenty-six out of the 29 Democratic candidates who won seats previously held by Republicans in the House and Senate championed bold progressive economic positions, according to a new report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future. The report shows that these progressive candidates’ victories represent a swing to the left of 34 votes in the House and 10 in the Senate, reflecting a clear mandate for progressive change.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., newly elected Rep.-Elect Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, and AFL-CIO political director Karen Ackerman joined Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage on a conference call with reporters today to discuss the report’s findings.

“This was not simply a change election. It was a sea-change election that marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics over the past three decades.” said Borosage. “Democrats won because they campaigned as progressives, not as moderates or conservatives. On core economic issues, voters gave these legislators a mandate for reform.”

Sen. Brown said candidates that won last night were unified around a common set of bold progressive themes.

“This election ushered in the next progressive era for our nation,” said Sen. Brown. “From health care to trade to education, progressive values will now be the priority in Washington. It’s time to get to work.”

Rep. Edwards, who easily won re-election last night, campaigned with several candidates in close races across the country. Rep. Edwards said the candidates she campaigned with embraced bold progressive positions on every major economic issue.

“Candidates across the country ran and won on a bold progressive agenda,” said Edwards. “Now our challenge is to govern on the progressive agenda – including smart investment in jobs, in infrastructure, in health care and energy, and bringing a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq. It’s an exciting time and I am confident that we will be able to set priorities to deliver the bold solutions Americans expect.”

Rep.-Elect Pingree, who became the first woman to represent Maine’s first Congressional District after leading Republican Charlie Summers in late results, said voters in her district were yearning for bold progressive change.

“This is day one of the change that we so desperately need in this country,” said Rep.-Elect Pingree.

To distinguish progressive candidates from conservatives and moderates, the CAF report compared the positions of the candidates on six major economic issues, including health care, workers’ rights, tax policy, trade, Social Security and clean energy. Out of the 29 Democrats who won House and Senate seats previously held by Republicans, 21 House candidates and 5 Senate candidates supported the progressive position on at least five out of the six issues. Only three of the winning candidates chose to run on a more conservative platform.

# # #

**NOTE: An electronic copy of the post-election report is available at www.ourfuture.org/progressive-mandate-2008.**

PROGRESSIVE ISSUE POSITIONS OF DEMOCRATS WHO WON
SEATS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY REPUBLICANS

--Sen.-Elect Mark Udall, D-Colo.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Tom Udall, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Kay Hagan, D-N.C.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Sen.-Elect Mark Warner, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Bobby Bright, D-Ala.: trade, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Betsy Markey, D-Colo.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Jim Hines, D-Conn.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Alan Grayson, D-Fla.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes,
--Rep.-Elect Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Walt Minnick, D-Idaho: health care, trade, energy, worker rights,
--Rep.-Elect Debbie Halvorson, D-Ill.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Frank Kratovil, D-Md.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Mark Schauer, D-Mich.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Gary Peters, D-Mich.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Dina Titus, D-Nev.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect John Adler, D-N.J.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Harry Teague, D-N.M.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Michael McMahon, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Dan Maffei, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Eric Massa, D-N.Y.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Larry Kissell, D-N.C.: trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect John Boccieri, D-Ohio: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Glenn Nye, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, Soc. Sec.
--Rep.-Elect Gerry Connolly, D-Va.: health care, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Senate candidate Al Franken, D-Minn.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.
--Senate candidate Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.: health care, trade, energy, worker rights, taxes, Soc. Sec.

WAR ROOM OPERATION TO TRACK CHANGES IN ECONOMY; DELIVER TALKING POINTS AND SOLUTIONS

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON – The Campaign for America’s Future launched an economic war room today to help frame the ongoing debate as the economy changes at an increasing pace and continues to get worse for millions of Americans. The operation will deliver daily poll-tested talking points to candidates, elected officials, talk show hosts, columnists, bloggers, labor leaders, activists and others, tying the latest research by think tanks like the EPI Policy Center to the latest opinion research by top strategists.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Robert Borosage said the alerts will include a set of persuasive facts and arguments on key issues, linking to a comprehensive analysis of solutions to economic problems on people’s minds.

“The change in the economy has been abrupt and serious,” said Borosage. “Economic issues are obviously on everyone’s mind, so it’s important to understand what is happening and to have messages that can move people. Our effort provides real policy alternatives to the political messaging already out there.”

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Drew Westen, an Emory University professor who has studied the way Americans think about issues and make decisions, are advising Borosage on messages they have tested and measured for impact. Lake and Westen joined Borosage on a conference call with reporters today to launch the messaging project.

Lake said on today’s call that Americans are increasingly convinced the country is on the edge of a recession and that Washington is not responding adequately.

“Economic problems are creating deep discontent across America,” said Lake. “The American Dream is slipping away and people want leaders to focus on kitchen-table issues like jobs, education, health care, housing and retirement. They are to ready to support our ideas if we present our values and policy solutions in a compelling way.”

Westen said Americans, whether Democratic or Republican, are persuaded more by emotions and values than by a laundry list of issues so policy arguments must be linked to broader themes to connect with them.

“Progressives typically bombard people with a laundry list of issues and policy positions, while conservatives offer them emotionally compelling appeals, whether to their values or prejudices,” said Westen. “The war room is designed to change that.”

The need for the economic war room became clear when the Campaign for America’s Future met with dozens of elected officials and progressive leaders to discuss economic messaging. The group found that opinion leaders were better versed at political messages but less so on solutions and effective ways of communicating them. To fill that gap, more than 3,000 federal- and state-elected officials and 3,000 activists are already receiving alerts from the economic war room.

# # #

**NOTE: Media representatives interested in more details about the economic war room should visit www.ourfuture.org/makingsense. Anyone interested in receiving real-time alerts, may do so by signing up on the website.**

SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION COULD FORCE THOUSANDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY INTO POVERTY

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Social Security privatization, embraced by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would cut guaranteed benefits for thousands of future retirees by thousands of dollars, according to a new state-specific report released today by the research arm of the Campaign for America’s Future. Today’s report shows that more than 8.6 million older Americans would have a greater risk of falling into poverty, each losing more than $240,000 over the course of their lifetimes, by the time a privatization plan like the one supported by Sen. McCain and President Bush is fully implemented.

Campaign for America’s Future co-director Roger Hickey, whose organization has worked to defend and strengthen Social Security for more than a decade, said the popular program is at risk again.

“Social Security is very popular across the country, but its guaranteed benefits are in the national crossfire again,” said Hickey. “Sen. McCain has been very clear about his plans to push privatization again despite the public backlash President Bush faced when he pushed his scheme a few years ago. The conservative ideologues just won’t stop trying to privatize Social Security.”

48.5 million Americans depend on their earned Social Security benefit every month, according to the Social Security Administration. Thousands of businesses and state governments also depend on the program. More than $580.5 billion flows into the U.S. economy from Social Security each year.

Diverting a portion of payroll taxes into risky private accounts could force many people below the poverty line. More than 36.4 million Americans currently live in poverty, according to the U.S. Census. Meanwhile, 7.9 million individuals depend on their guaranteed Social Security benefits for 90 percent or more of their income. The average Social Security check for individual retirees is $1,088 per month; it takes $867 per month to stay above the federal poverty line. These Social Security recipients would be close to the edge and vulnerable to rising food, housing and energy costs.

# # #

**NOTE: Media representatives interested in copies of today's state-specific Social Security reports should visit www.ourfuture.org/privatization. **

SOCIAL SECURITY PRIVATIZATION
STATE-SPECIFIC BREAKDOWN

(State; number of beneficiaries; average Social Security benefit; statewide income from Social Security; number of people living in poverty; number of additional people who could be forced into poverty with privatization; total benefit that could be lost with privatization)

--Alabama; 934,000; $1,041; $10.5 billion; 742,000; 194,000; $162,000
--Alaska; 68,000; $1,031; $774.1 million; 70,000; 7,000; $249,000
--Arizona; 959,000; $1,102; $11.8 billion; 857,000; 130,000; $204,000
--Arkansas; 588,000; $1,013; $6.5 billion; 471,000; 107,000; $117,000
--California; 4,571,000; $1,076; $54.4 billion; 4,690,000; 970,000; $312,000
--Colorado; 616,000; $1,062; $7.3 billion; 556,000; 94,000; $262,000
--Connecticut; 592,000; $1,179; $7.8 billion; 280,000; 78,000; $391,000
--Delaware; 157,000; $1,143; $2 billion; 91,000; 17,000; $286,000
--Florida; 3,477,000; $1,074; $41.7 billion; 2,226,000; 668,000; $180,000
--Georgia; 1,305,000; $1,056; $15.1 billion; 1,333,000; 217,000; $229,000
--Hawaii; 207,000; $1,067; $2.5 billion; 116,000; 20,000; $184,000
--Idaho; 240,000; $1,054; $2.8 billion; 180,000; 51,000; $118,000
--Illinois; 1,921,000; $1,117; $23.8 billion; 1,539,000; 354,000; $286,000
--Indiana; 1,097,000; $1,135; $13.6 billion; 777,000; 145,000; $183,000
--Iowa; 558,000; $1,076; $6.7 billion; 316,000; 82,000; $140,000
--Kansas; 457,000; $1,104; $5.6 billion; 330,000; 87,000; $157,000
--Kentucky; 827,000; $1,024; $9.1 billion; 693,000; 143,000; $158,000
--Louisiana; 735,000; $1,007; $7.9 billion; 793,000; 192,000; $147,000
--Maine; 280,000; $1,000; $3.1 billion; 165,000; 62,000; $141,000
--Maryland; 786,000; $1,097; $9.6 billion; 428,000; 104,000; $282,000
--Massachusetts; 1,080,000; $1,087; $13 billion; 620,000; 179,000; $363,000
--Michigan; 1,802,000; $1,165; $22.9 billion; 1,331,000; 237,000; $264,000
--Minnesota; 814,000; $1,088; $9.9 billion; 491,000; 149,000; $254,000
--Mississippi; 559,000; $1,000; $6 billion; 592,000; 111,000; $96,000
--Missouri; 1,089,000; $1,063; $12.7 billion; 769,000; 202,000; $190,000
--Montana; 176,000; $1,027; $2 billion; 125,000; 38,000; $87,000
--Nebraska; 295,000; $1,062; $3.5 billion; 197,000; 59,000; $137,000
--Nevada; 362,000; $1,085; $4.4 billion; 253,000; 71,000; $203,000
--New Hampshire; 231,000; $1,114; $2.9 billion; 102,000; 39,000; $235,000
--New Jersey; 1,388,000; $1,190; $18.4 billion; 741,000; 154,000; $366,000
--New Mexico; 327,000; $1,010; $3.6 billion; 353,000; 70,000; $137,000
--New York; 3,097,000; $1,137; $38.8 billion; 2,662,000; 548,000; $383,000
--North Carolina; 1,587,000; $1,064; $18.6 billion; 1,261,000; 318,000; $184,000
--North Dakota; 116,000; $1,004; $1.3 billion; 69,000; 24,000; $95,000
--Ohio; 1,992,000; $1,090; $23.8 billion; 1,486,000; 332,000; $207,000
--Oklahoma; 657,000; $1,038; $7.5 billion; 587,000; 121,000; $125,000
--Oregon; 643,000; $1,087; $7.8 billion; 480,000; 105,000; $199,000
--Pennsylvania; 2,456,000; $1,111; $30.1 billion; 1,448,000; 379,000; $230,000
--Rhode Island; 193,000; $1,080; $2.3 billion; 114,000; 30,000; $215,000
--South Carolina; 822,000; $1,066; $9.6 billion; 656,000; 184,000; $145,000
--South Dakota; 144,000; $999; $1.6 billion; 102,000; 36,000; $92,000
--Tennessee; 1,139,000; $1,058; $13.1 billion; 952,000; 197,000; $182,000
--Texas; 3,102,000; $1,050; $35.4 billion; 3,868,000; 718,000; $236,000
--Utah; 290,000; $1,087; $3.5 billion; 265,000; 53,000; $154,000
--Vermont; 117,000; $1,075; $1.4 billion; 62,000; 19,000; $160,000
--Virginia; 1,180,000; $1,071; $13.9 billion; 708,000; 181,000; $250,000
--Washington; 982,000; $1,122; $12.2 billion; 736,000; 133,000; $265,000
--West Virginia; 424,000; $1,065; $4.9 billion; 307,000; 79,000; $125,000
--Wisconsin; 980,000; $1,108; $12.1 billion; 591,000; 169,000; $181,000
--Wyoming; 84,000; $1,075; $1 billion; 46,000; 18,000; $130,000

# # #

State Of The Union 2006: By The Numbers

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:00:00 -0800

ON INCOMES:
--Inflation-adjusted average CEO pay at depth of recession in 2002: $7,773,000
--Average CEO pay as of 2004: $9,600,000
[Executive Pay, Business Week 4/21/2003; A Payday For Performance, Business Week 4/18/2005]

--Increase in productivity for 2005: +13.5 percent
--Percentage increase in average American CEO’s compensation since 2002: +24 percent
[Business Week, April 21, 2003; BLS, Labor Productivity and Costs]

--Inflation-adjusted median household income in 2000: $46,058
--Median household income in 2004: $44,389
[Historical Income Tables –Households, H-6 Table US Census]

--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in White households: $1,066
--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in Hispanic households: $2,141
--Decrease in median income from 2000-2004 in Black households: $2,407
[Historical Income Tables –Households, H-6 White, not Hispanic, Black, and Hispanic Tables, US Census]

ON JOBS:
--American manufacturing jobs in 2001: 17,101,000
--American manufacturing jobs in 2005: 14,283,000
[The Economic State Of The Union, Manufacturing & Technology News Jan. 19, 2006]

--Number of private sector jobs created since 2001 excluding those produced by increased military spending: -1,160,000
--Number of American manufacturing jobs lost since 2001: 2,818,000
[Economic Policy Institute, Sept. 3, 2005; Manufacturing & Technology News, Jan. 19, 2006]

--Average number of fewer hours per week parents have to spend with their kids today than 35 years ago: 22
--Percentage decrease in average American household income since 2000: -3 percent
[National Statistics, PBS— Hedrick Smith; US Census]

ON ENERGY:
--Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2000: $1.51
--Average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2005: $2.28
[December 2005 Monthly Energy Review, Energy Information Administration, Dec. 22, 2005]

--Percentage increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline since 2000: +51 percent
--Percentage increase in the price of a gallon of home heating oil since 2000: +94 percent
[Energy Information Administration, Dec. 22, 2005; Energy Information Administration, Jan. 2006]

--Average price of a gallon of home heating oil, Winter of 1999-2000: $1.24
--Projected price of a gallon of home heating oil, Winter of 2005-2006: $2.41
[Selected U.S. Average Consumer: Table WF01, Energy Information Administration, Jan. 2006]

--Average increase in profits for oil companies in third quarter of 2005: +69 percent
--Amount of subsidies provided to oil industry in 2005 energy bill: $6 billion
[Star-Telegram, Oct. 26, 2005; Public Citizen Aug. 2005]

ON HEALTH CARE:
--Percentage of companies that provided health care to their employees in 2000: 69 percent
--Percentage of companies that provided health care to their employees in 2005: 60 percent
[The Kaiser Family Foundation, June 14, 2005]

--Number of Americans without health insurance in 2000: 39,800,000
--Number of Americans without health insurance as of 2004: 45,800,000
[U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 30, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau Aug. 30, 2005.]

--Percentage of companies that provided healthcare insurance to their employees as of 2005: 60 percent
--Number of additional Americans without health insurance since 2000: 6,000,000
[The Kaiser Family Foundation, June 14, 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, Aug. 30, 2005]

ON COLLEGE COSTS:
--Average cost of yearly tuition at a 4-year public university in 2000: $7,020
--Average cost of yearly tuition at a 4-year public university in 2005: $10,982
[Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 27, 2000; The College Board, Oct.18, 2005]

--Average increase in yearly tuition costs for public university students since 2000: +$3,962
--Average loan burden a carried by student upon graduation as of 2003: $18,900
--Average increase families will pay in student loan interests due to Republican cuts in the 2006 education budget: $2,000 for students, $3,000 for parents
[Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 27, 2000; The College Board, Oct. 18, 2005; Nellie Mae Feb. 6, 2003; Wall Street Journal, Dec. 22, 2005]

ON RETIREMENT SECURITY:
--Americans working in private sector who can rely on a defined pension as of 2004: 6 percent
--Baby Boomers who believe they’re very prepared to meet living expenses of retirement as of 2005: 24 percent
[New York Times, Jan. 16, 2006; AllState, Oct. 4, 2005]

# # #

New Report Shows That Rural Wisconsinites Rely On Social Security Income More Than The Rest Of The State

Toby Chaudhuri — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:00:00 -0700

Cadott, WI – Wisconsin United to Protect Social Security along with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Secretary Rod Nilsestuen and the Wisconsin Farmers Union held a press conference today to decry steep benefit cuts and the risky privatization scheme under President Bush's Social Security proposal as part of the launch of Rural Americans for a Secure Future in Wisconsin. Wisconsin United released a report showing that the state’s rural areas depended on Social Security income more than the non-rural communities.

"Wisconsin is a state that has built its foundation on its farms and rural communities," said DATCP Secretary Rod Nilsestuen. "This rural Wisconsin report shows that it will be the backbone of this great state that will suffer the most under the President's new provisions. That is why I am here to let the President, and all those who support his plan know that rural Wisconsinites want their Social Security to remain secure."

"Wisconsin farmers have a tremendous financial, physical and emotional investment in their farm. They understand the value of what they've grown -- including Social Security," said Sue Beitlich, President of the Wisconsin Farmers Union. "Social Security is an important guaranteed retirement benefit that farmers have earned and are counting on. For most farmers who pass on their farm to the next generation, they rely on this benefit during their retirement years, and President Bush and Congress should not take that away."

The mandatory benefit cuts included in the President’s Social Security privatization plan would hurt Wisconsin’s rural communities more harshly than urban communities. For every county in Wisconsin, the Institute for America’s Future analyzed Social Security income and beneficiary data as well as other distinguishing characteristics from the Social Security Administration, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis and other sources. The study found that the state's rural communities depend on income from Social Security more than the non-rural communities.

According to the National Association of Counties, there are 45 non-metropolitan or rural counties in Wisconsin. Total personal income in these counties was fully $27,980,112,000 in 2003 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA reports that individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $2,270,744,000 in Social Security benefits - or 8.1 percent. Although non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, they do not nearly as much as rural areas. There are 27 non-rural communities in Wisconsin with a total personal income of $139,998,882,000 with individuals receiving $7,298,628,000 in Social Security benefits - or 5.2 percent.

"Rural Americans need the guaranteed benefits of Social Security even more than their urban counterparts because of the existing disparity in wealth and disability," said Jon Lipshutz, State Director for Wisconsin United. "This report clearly shows that any reduction in benefits would have a disproportionate negative impact on the state's rural communities. We call on Congressman Mark Green, who is also running for Governor, to stand up for rural communities in Wisconsin."

###

New Report Shows That Rural Nevadans Rely On Social Security More Than The Rest Of The State

Toby Chaudhuri — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:00:00 -0700

NEVADA - Nevada United to Protect Social Security held a press call today, joined by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), to release a report showing that Nevada's rural areas depend on Social Security income more than the non-rural communities. On the call, Senator Reid decried steep benefit cuts and the risky privatization scheme under President Bush's Social Security proposal as dangerous for the people of Nevada.

"Social Security and its guaranteed benefits reflect the best of America's values,” Senator Reid said. “That is why I can not support President Bush's plan to privatize the program. I believe his plan would destroy Social Security, and this report shows it would be especially disastrous for rural Nevada."

According to the Institute for America's Future, the President's proposal would result in a lifetime benefit reduction of over $181,886 for the typical Nevada worker, even after average gains to a private account are considered. However, these mandatory benefit cuts would hurt Nevada's rural communities more harshly than urban communities. For every county in Nevada, the Institute for America’s Future, one of Nevada United's partner organizations, analyzed Social Security income and beneficiary data as well as other distinguishing characteristics from the Social Security Administration, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Economic Analysis and other sources. The study found that Nevada's rural communities depend on income from Social Security more than the non-rural communities.

According to the National Association of Counties, there are 14 non-metropolitan or rural counties in Nevada (of 16 total counties). Total personal income in these counties was fully $6,760,031,000 in 2003 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA reports that individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $445,482,000 in Social Security benefits – or 6.6 percent of total personal income. Although non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, they do not nearly as much as rural areas. There are two non-rural counties in Nevada with a total personal income of $62,970,883,000 with individuals receiving $2,802,088,000 in Social Security benefits – or 4.4 percent of total personal income.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the President's plan to privatize Social Security and cut benefits would have a negative impact on the quality of life in Nevada," said Senator Reid. "Addressing the long term challenges of Social Security will take tough choices and prioritizing our budget, but it can be done. I hope President Bush will take privatization off the table so we can work on ways that will actually protect and strengthen Social Security."

"It is important that Nevada's representatives in Congress concern themselves with how changes to Social Security would affect all of their constituents," said Greg Leifer, State Director for Nevada United. "This report clearly shows that any reduction in benefits would have a disproportionate negative impact on Nevada's rural communities. We call on Representatives Gibbons and Porter to stand up for rural communities in Nevada."

The report also reveals that rural Nevada has a higher percentage of seniors, higher percentage of women who receive Social Security, and more disabled people receiving Social Security benefits than non-rural areas.

###

New Report Shows Rural Pennsylvanians Would Suffer More Under Bush/santorum Plan

Toby Chaudhuri — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:00:00 -0700

Bellefonte, PA - At a press conference today in Centre County, Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security, along with Ni-Ta-Nee NOW and other members of the Pennsylvanians United coalition, released a report that illustrates how much rural and farming communities would suffer under the Bush/Santorum privatization plan.

Because Social Security plays a more significant role in the overall income of rural communities than it does in non-rural communities, the $205,632 reduction in retirement benefits facing a typical Pennsylvanian under the Bush/Santorum plan would hit rural families harder.

"Rural families work hard to earn a secure retirement, and the Bush/Santorum plan puts their retirement security in jeopardy," said Lauren Townsend, Executive Director of Citizens for Consumer Justice. "Social Security is a crucial guaranteed benefit for rural communities and it should not be gambled on the stock market. This report shows how important it is that we take privatization off the table."

According to the report by the Institute for America's Future, there are 23 counties in Pennsylvania that are considered to be rural. Among those counties, total personal income was fully $18,151,376,000 in 2003, the most recent county-specific information available. Individuals with Social Security income in these counties cumulatively received $1,594,581,000 in Social Security benefits – or 8.8 percent of total personal income.

While non-rural communities rely on Social Security income, their reliance on the program is not as great. There are 44 non-rural counties in Pennsylvania with a total personal income of $376,609,395,000 (again, as of 2003, the most recent year such data was available). Individuals in these counties received $23,342,259,000 in Social Security benefits in 2003 – or 6.2 percent of total personal income.

Clearly, rural communities are relying on Social Security benefits more heavily than non-rural communities. Rural Pennsylvanians tend to be older and tend to use survivor or disability benefits more frequently as a result of the risks associated with farming.

The Institute for America's Future further investigated the impact of the Bush/Santorum plan on rural women, specifically.

According to the report, as a group, senior women in rural communities have a more difficult time making ends meet than most other Americans. Nationally, 15 percent of rural women over the age of 60 are poor. By comparison, 11 percent of rural men over the age of 60 are poor. In addition, among rural seniors over the age of 85 with an income of less than $10,000 per year, 80 percent are women. As a result, rural women are less likely to be able to afford the Bush/Santorum benefit cuts.

"A greater number of rural women rely on Social Security benefits to survive than just about any other group," said Joanne Tosti-Vasey, Treasurer of Pennsylvania NOW and a member of Pennsylvanians United. "Privatizing Social Security and cutting retirement, survivor, and disability benefits would be a devastating blow to these women. It’s not fair and it’s not right. We’re standing up today to say NO to privatization and benefit cuts."

Speaking at the press conference today was Centre County resident Mary Angert who comes from a rural, working family. Angert spoke of the challenges facing rural, farming families.

"When I was growing up, my family wasn't any different than the other rural working families we knew," said Angert. "We worked hard every day to put food on the table and make ends meet. But eventually there came a time when it just wasn't enough. Thanks to the Social Security safety net, we were able to make it through. For my family, like so many rural families, Social Security was and continues to be an insurance policy against poverty and desperation. We have to do everything in our power to protect it and defeat any effort to privatize it."

Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security is a non-partisan coalition of organizations committed to opposing Social Security benefit cuts for the middle class and any effort to privatize Social Security. Coalition members include: Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, AFSCME Council 13, Bethel AME Church of Lancaster, Citizens for Consumer Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Delco Action Seniors, Delaware County Progressives, Institute for the Study of Civic Values, IUP Labor Education Center, Lake Erie Alliance for Democracy, National Council of Jewish Women-PA, National Organization of Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Ni-Ta-Nee NOW, PennPIRG, Pennsylvania ACORN, Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Pennsylvania Alliance of Retired Americans, Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Pennsylvania NOW, Pennsylvania Womens Law Project, Philadelphia Area Coalition to Defend Social Security, Philadelphia Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Philly VietNam Vets Against the War, Third World Coalition, Urban League of Lancaster, VoteBluePA, WomenVotePA, and Women's Way.

# # #

NOTE: This report was released in Centre County today. For a copy of the report, please go to: http://emailimages.ctsg.com/caf/ssreport_rural_pa.pdf.

Bush Social Security Scheme Hits Rural Pennsylvanians Hardest

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00:00 -0700

University Park, PA - As President Bush arrives in University Park, PA today to address the Future Farmers of America, one topic he's not likely to bring up is the negative impact of his Social Security cuts on rural Pennsylvanians.

Because rural Americans tend to be older and more dependent on Social Security, the Bush Social Security overhaul plan - which includes both Social Security privatization and middle-class benefit cuts - would increase the number of rural Pennsylvanians living in poverty.

"Rural Pennsylvanians and Pennsylvania's farmers are going to be in bad shape as a result of the Bush Social Security plan," said Joanne Tosti-Vasey, treasurer of Pennsylvania NOW and a member of Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security. "Farming is one of the most hazardous occupations in America. Because of the high incidence of disability and death, more farming families rely on disability benefits and survivors benefits. The Bush plan would wipe those benefits out. Privatization is a bad deal for rural Pennsylvanians."

Rural women will be hit even harder by the Bush Social Security overhaul. Women in rural communities often rely on survivor benefits and disability benefits. Under the Bush privatization plan, because workers who are disabled or die have less time to invest, surviving spouses and children could see benefit cuts of up to 35%.

Senior women in rural communities are often among Pennsylvania's poorest citizens. The reduction in retirement benefits as a result of Bush's privatization and benefit cuts plan will plunge even more of their ranks into poverty.

"A greater number of rural Pennsylvanians rely on Social Security to survive," added Dianne Gregg of Centre County. "Privatizing Social Security is like pulling the financial rug out from under them. It's a cruel trick and it will mean more rural and farming families will live in poverty. It's ironic that President Bush is speaking in Milton Eisenhower Auditorium as his brother President Eisenhower had the right idea about protecting rural families. Ike was right. Bush is wrong."

In 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a letter, "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are... a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Pennsylvanians United to Protect Social Security is a coalition of organizations committed to opposing Social Security benefit cuts for the middle class and any effort to privatize Social Security. Coalition members include: Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, AFSCME Council 13, Bethel AME Church of Lancaster, Citizens for Consumer Justice, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Delco Action Seniors, Delaware County Progressives, Institute for the Study of Civic Values, IUP Labor Education Center, National Council of Jewish Women-PA, National Organization of Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Ni-Ta-Nee NOW, PennPIRG, Pennsylvania ACORN, Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Pennsylvania Alliance of Retired Americans, Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Pennsylvania NOW, Pennsylvania Womens Law Project, Philadelphia Area Coalition to Defend Social Security, Philadelphia Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Philly VietNam Vets Against the War, Third World Coalition, Urban League of Lancaster, VoteBluePA, WomenVotePA, and Women's Way.

# # #

Key Wall Street Ceos Pay Social Security Taxes One Day A Year But Push For Risky Change

Toby Chaudhuri — Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:00:00 -0700

BOSTON— A new report, entitled ”Taxpayers for a Day: The Most to Gain, the Least to Lose” from United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and the Institute for America’s Future (IAF), finds that CEOs of Wall Street firms supporting the partial privatization of Social Security effectively pay into the system for only a few days a year. That is because Social Security tax payments are capped and most financial industry CEOs have compensation packages high enough to allow them to complete payments under the cap in the first few days of January.

“The CEO of Charles Schwab, David Pottruck, finished paying his Social Security taxes before the end of the Rose Bowl on January 1st, 2004,” said Scott Klinger, co-director of UFE’s Responsible Wealth project and a co-author of the report. “That’s $87,900 in a few hours. Most Americans pay all year long without ever reaching the annual cap.”

The report examines the pay structures of 26 CEOs of finance industry companies involved in backing privatization efforts and estimates the dates by which they will have finished paying Social Security taxes.

 Of the 26 CEOs at public and U.S.-owned firms, average compensation in 2004 was $17,712,239. The average CEO within this group surpassed the $87,900 earnings cap after 4 days on the job, or at the end of the day on January 4th, after which no Social Security tax would be collected.

 While 94 percent of workers effectively pay 12.4 percent of their annual income, including employer’s contribution, these CEOs pay an average effective rate of 0.16 percent of their annual income toward Social Security taxes. The average “Joe” taxpayer pays an effective rate that is more than 201 times the effective rate of the average CEO in this group.

 Seven of the CEOs are “taxpayers for a day.” Their pay was so high, they exceeded the 2004 $87,900 earnings cap in eight hours or less. These include the CEOs of Bear Stearns, Charles Schwab, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo/Strong Financial.

“To these guys, $90,000 is play money,” said report co-author Adam Luna, IAF Policy Director. “Trouble is, they want Congress to privatize Social Security so they can play with our money.”

“As most Americans worry about their ability to pay their taxes by April 15, they should keep in mind that Social Security would be funded and solvent into the next century if the highest-earning 6% of Americans would pay taxes on their full income, just like everyone else,” concluded Klinger.

Authors of the report at United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for America’s Future are available to comment on the report, which can be found at http://www.faireconomy.org/WallStreetCEOs.

United for a Fair Economy is an independent national non-profit that raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide, and tear communities apart.

The Institute for America’s Future (IAF) is a center of progressive strategy, organizing and issue campaigns. IAF anchors a progressive leadership network, enlisting leaders at the national, state and local levels to build a more just and democratic society.

###