National Nurses United

Social Security 2_FNL with art 12/9/10 10:31 PM Page 18 RN Jean Ross pointed out that Simpson and Bowles "Nurses have worked for years with substandard could have suggested any other number of possible real retirement systems and now there is an effort solutions to our deficit. "These commissions are proto reduce them even further. Almost every time posing nothing to close tax loopholes and create jobs," said Ross. "A good place to start would be to expand we go into negotiation these days management Medicare to include everyone. That alone would create proposes to erode our retirement plans. In fact, about 2.6 million jobs. They also say nothing about the defined benefit pensions are disappearing wars that are draining the economy." Critics say that despite all the commissioners' talk all over the place. Any cutbacks of defending the poor, the victims of their plan would in Social Security will only increase be working people and the effect will be to exacerbate our insecurity and that of economic inequality. Social Security benefits now go to nearly 54 million retirees, disabled workers, surothers, like our younger viving spouses, and children. Payments for retired nurses, as well." workers average $1,020 a month; disability benefits average $929 a month. Contrary to what some media reports have maintained, the proposed change in the cost-of-living calculation would begin in 2011 and affect all beneficiaries, not just future retirees. Part of the flimflam around the commission cochairs' proposal is the oft-stated notion that these changes would help the poor and lower benefits for the rich. In fact, those hardest hit would be average workers. "The vast majority of near-retirees will rely on Social Security for most of their income in retirement," said Baker. "All of these proposals will result in significant cuts in income for low- and middle-income families. " Within a few years, people now making about $40,000 a year could expect that if they retired in 2040, their monthly benefits would be 12 percent lower than under present law. A worker retiring in 2080 would get $900 a month, 28 percent less than she or he would receive currently. Someone earning an average of about $100,000 over a 35-year working life would receive close to 50 percent less. Much is being made of the commission's proposal to switch to "progressive price-indexing," which means tying initial benefit levels to changes in prices rather than average wages. However, critics charge that the change would significantly cut security benefits for many recipients. In a report issued by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, researchers Kathy A. Ruffing and Paul N. Van de Water maintain that, among other things, this approach is "misguided" for several reasons. First, it would significantly cut future benefits for very large numbers of workers — including those with relatively modest incomes – compared to curally, for many workers, eliminate — the link between their earnings rently scheduled benefit levels and "under the most common proand the benefits they receive upon retirement" which "would repregressive price indexing proposal, benefits would be reduced by sent a sharp change in the program's philosophy and would risk nearly 30 percent for those who earned medium wages (about undercutting its broad base of support." $43,000 in 2010 dollars) and by as much as 50 percent for higher On the question of eligibility, Simpson and Bowles propose to earners." increase the age a person would qualify for Social Security by one Second, future retirees would over time fall further and further month every two years past the current eligibility age of 67. The behind their previous standard of living — and behind the rest of society "because price indexing would steadily reduce the fraction of normal retirement age would rise to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. But by raising the retirement age, their plan discrimiworkers' past earnings that Social Security benefits replace." nates against lower-wage workers. As the Strengthen Social SecuriThird, progressive price indexing "would weaken — and eventu18 N AT I O N A L N U R S E W W W. N A T I O N A L N U R S E S U N I T E D . O R G NOVEMBER 2010

• Cover