The billionaires and CEOs behind "Fix the Debt" have a lot of nerve. Once again they're using cheap scare tactics and some manipulative “nudging” to drum up support for cutting Social Security benefits.
Eighty-one years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, and the program has a wonderful birthday present. Neither presidential candidate is running on Social Security privatization or benefit cuts.
The Peterson Foundation has added Henry Kissinger to a list of defense experts who declare that the federal debt is the "single biggest threat to our national security." But consider Kissinger's own threats to our global well-being.
President Obama on Wednesday did a remarkable 180-degree turn on Social Security, and for the first time we can claim the president as an ally on expanding, not cutting, the program.
Cigna was sanctioned by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for conduct that "poses a serious threat to the health and safety of Medicare beneficiaries." So why does it keep its favorable star rating?
During Thursday's Republican presidential debate, CNN's Dana Bash falsely framed a question about Social Security. Here are some facts about Social Security that can help people who are worried by these Republican lies and scare tactics.
Donald Trump has attracted attention for being the rare Republican who doesn't promise to cut Social Security. But that doesn't mean you should trust him on Social Security.
Fewer of us are ready for retirement, and it's even worse for African Americans, Hispanics and lower-income people. That's all the more reason we need to strengthen Social Security, according to an Economic Policy Institute report.
Her most declarative statement to date on the issue of where she would stand on various proposals to "reform" Social Security and ensure its long-term solvency comes in the context of a disconcerting history.
Sanders, who daily attacks the "billionaire class," is proposing Social Security changes that benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of us? Sound preposterous? That is because it is. Let's examine the facts.
Tuesday's CNN town hall debate missed an opportunity to clarify where Clinton stands on expanding Social Security. Now a petition drive seeks to build political momentum for legislation to improve Social Security benefits.
Next year Social Security recipients get a zero cost-of-living-allowance, but CEOs just got a taxpayer-subsidized raise. Sen. Elizabeth Warren proposes matching that raise for seniors. Which side is your representative on?
Where she stands on a bill that would give seniors the same raise that top CEOs have received would say a lot about where she stands on the larger question of expanding instead of cutting Social Security.
While corporations stash more and more in the accounts of CEOs, they’ve slashed more and more from workers whose labor creates profits. That means retirement luxury for CEOs; retirement poverty for workers.
A zero cost-of-living increase for Social Security is no small matter. You would be hard pressed to find a senior who has not seen the cost of medical care, prescription drugs, food and other necessities go up.
O'Malley's plan expands Social Security but goes beyond Social Security into savings, wages and long-term care. Sanders' earlier plan is similar but not as broad. Clinton has not yet offered a plan.
Republicans are still working to erode the public’s trust in Social Security, just as they did when GOP presidential candidate Alf Landon called it “a fraud on the workingman” in 1936.
Once again, it’s clear that there is no crisis in Social Security’s financing. The fact is that not only can we afford the current levels of Social Security protection, we can afford to expand them.
The petitions follow a Sunday letter to the White House from 70 Democratic Senators and Representatives asking President Obama to "expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans."
The GOP isn’t openly presenting itself as the anti-elderly party. But its leading presidential candidates are pushing cuts to Social Security, and its budgets would end Medicare as we know it.
The obstacles faced by the progressive movement aren’t news to anybody who's been paying attention. But recent developments may also stir an unfamiliar sensation in the liberally minded observer: optimism.
I was asked by The Huffington Post to predict what Social Security might look like 10 years from now. That future is filled with both possibility and shadowed by danger.
Will Hillary Clinton embrace her party's growing call to increase Social Security benefits? It's not an extreme idea, or even a particularly “leftist” one. In fact, it was a key part of the Republican platform – in 1956.
“The trust fund isn't real.” This claim is evergreen on the right – and it's wrong, as wrong as when Alf Landon deployed many of the same arguments in his 1936 race against FDR.
The latest attack on Social Security comes from a “libertarian” finance writer, an editor for the National Review and – inevitably – the editorial board of the Washington Post. But there's a struggle among Democrats, too.
In the latest hearing of their "Middle Class Prosperity Project," Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings hear how some financial advisers enrich themselves by imperiling the retirement of their clients.
The Maryland Senate race has just begun, of course. But so far, it seems to point to the pitfalls of corporate “centrism” – and the promise of economic populism.
It comes down to this question: Are these Democrats committed to ensuring that retired working people can live in dignity and financial security? That's become a litmus test for their commitment to the American majority.
We have learned that the series hired a leading "new Democrat" (read, "corporate Democrat") as a consultant for the show's most misleading episode, which suggests that cutting "entitlements" is a necessity.
The huge transfer of income and wealth from the middle class to the top 1 percent is not just a moral issue, but also a huge economic issue that affects Social Security to a significant degree, Sen. Bernie Sanders points out.
The top one percent of working Americans only pay Social Security tax on the wages they earn during the first six weeks of the year. The rest of the year is a tax holiday. Is that fair?
Class war is precisely what we've been seeing for decades now – but it's been waged for, not against, the wealthy. Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee opened up a new front in that war Wednesday.
The president proposed moving money into the Social Security disability fund and pledged to only support moves to "strengthen retirement security." Republicans were prepared to put millions of vulnerable Americans at risk.
Raising Medicare deductibles buys into the philosophy that it’s OK to tax older Americans (make them pay more) and keep them from getting care if they are unable to afford the Medicare deductible or the copays.
What should we make of language in the 2016 budget that puts the administration in opposition to "any measures that privatize or weaken the Social Security system" or "slashes benefits for future generations"?
The Republican Congress, making overhauling the Social Security disability program one of its first orders of business, put in place a rule change that would make it difficult to address a projected funding shortfall.
Unexpectedly fierce Republican attacks on Social Security offer the president an opportunity to set the political tone for the next two years. During the State of the Union we'll see whether he seizes that opportunity.
How does the right justify the kind of action Congress took this week, when it moved to cut disability benefits for millions of people by 20 percent? Answer #1: With buzzwords and rhetorical dodges. Answer #2: Not very well.
Who bears the human cost of Republican hostility to this popular and vital program? Today it's the disabled. If they succeed, tomorrow it will be America's seniors. But we'll all pay, one way or another.
House Republicans start the new Congress by declaring that tax cuts defy gravity and that future disability payments should be held hostage to set the stage for Social Security cuts.