Seniors Can Now Access Social Security Accounts Online Without Cell Phones

Following efforts from U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Claire McCaskill, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Aging Committee, seniors will once again be able to access their Social Security accounts online without needing to have a cell phone. Senators Collins and McCaskill sent a letter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) last week urging immediate action to roll back a new policy that required text message authentication for seniors to access their “my Social Security” account online.

While noting the need for enhanced security, Senators Collins and McCaskill were concerned that using text message authentication as the only means of guaranteeing an individual’s access to their account put an undue burden on seniors, many of whom do not own a cell phone. Following the letter from Collins and McCaskill, as well as feedback from customers around the country, the SSA announced it is rolling back the policy that would have limited access for some users. 

“I am pleased that the Social Security Administration listened to the concerns we raised in our letter and reversed its decision to use text message authentication as the only means of guaranteeing individuals’ access to their online accounts,” said Senator Collins. “As Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I was troubled that the policy would have placed a high burden on seniors, many of whom do not own a cell phone. While the Social Security Administration should develop ways to enhance security to prevent fraud, they must take into account the needs of seniors and ensure that they have easy access to their accounts.”

“Protecting our seniors and the retirement security they’ve earned is one of my top priorities as a Senator,” McCaskill said. “We’ve got to ensure seniors have easy and secure access to their accounts without having to jump through advanced technological hoops, so I’m encouraged by the agency’s responsiveness in addressing this issue and look forward to working with them as they implement this new policy.”

To prevent seniors across our country from being unable to access their accounts, the letter U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Claire McCaskill sent to SSA Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin called on the agency to “consider the effect of this policy on the beneficiaries SSA is intended to serve” and asked “that [they] provide, as quickly as possible, additional authentication options” to “allow all seniors to have safe and speedy access to their own accounts.”

Letters Alert Eligible Medicare Beneficiaries to Missed Benefits

Medicare beneficiaries will soon be receiving a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) if they may be eligible for help with their out-of-pocket medical and drug expenses.   “These letters are not a scam.  They are an important notification that Medicare beneficiaries should review and consider.  NWMOAAA staff members can help determine if they’re eligible, apply, enroll, and even understand how to use their new benefits once they’ve been approved.”

The letters are sent annually to people with Medicare with limited incomes who could be eligible for, but are not enrolled in, a Medicare Savings Program, which helps with Medicare out-of-pocket costs; or Extra Help, which helps with the costs of prescription drugs. 

Anyone who receives a letter, or who believes they or someone they know may be able to get help from these programs, should contact Northwest Missouri Area Agency on Aging at 888-844-5626 or 726-3800 to make an appointment for assistance.  NWMOAAA encourages beneficiaries who receive these letters to take action to learn more about the Medicare Savings Program (MSP) and Extra Help or other programs they may be eligible for.

In addition, Medicare beneficiaries can go online to see if they are eligible for MSPs, Extra Help and other benefits that can supplement their monthly budget.  The National Council on Aging’s BenefitsCheckUp® is a free, confidential screening tool that can connect older and adults and younger adults with disabilities to these programs. Learn more at BenefitsCheckUp.org.

Social Security Taxes Increase for Local Residents

People in an already tight economy are seeing less money in their paychecks thanks to an increase in the Social Security Tax. Locally, people are seeing anywhere from $10 to $150 less per month in their paychecks thanks to the increase. Under the recently passed Fiscal Cliff deal, the Social Security Tax rate went from 4.2% to 6.2% as a payroll tax cut signed into law by President Obama two years ago was allowed to expire. The Social Security Tax has gone back to where it was.

The total hit to taxpayers from the tax law changes under the Fiscal Cliff Deal, according to figures from the Tax Policy Center, depends on the income level of the taxpayer. Persons making from $0 to $20,112 will pay an average of $120 more annually, depending on their situation. Persons making from $20,113 to $39,789 will pay $367 more while persons making $39,790 to $64,483 will pay $679 more annually.

Supporters of this particular change say that allowing this tax cut to expire was necessary in order to fund the Social Security System. Opponents say that these changes will mean people will get less take-home pay, meaning less disposable income and putting more pressure on an economy that is already tight.

McCaskill Votes to Protect Medicare, Social Security, Pell Grants

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today voted to protect Missouri’s working families from dramatic cuts to vital services like Medicare, Social Security, and Pell Grants.

McCaskill opposed separate budget proposals debated in the Senate—measures intended to dismantle Medicare and turn it into a voucher program, slash Social Security benefits, and gut the Pell Grant program. The proposals were meant to replace the current federal budget in place under the Budget Control Act of last year, which followed last year’s compromise over the debt ceiling.

The proposals—which McCaskill called “each more extreme than the last”—would have implemented dramatic cuts in services for working families, while preserving tax giveaways for big oil companies as well as multi-millionaires and billionaires.

“It’s astonishing to me that so many Washington politicians want to cut vital services for our working families in order to provide new tax-goodies for millionaires, billionaires, and powerful corporations,” McCaskill said. “These people need to drop their obsession with dismantling Medicare, Social Security, and Pell Grants, and instead turn their focus to putting more folks back to work with new job opportunities, and balancing the budget in a responsible way.”

Proposals considered in the Senate today—which kept in place huge tax giveaways for big oil companies, multi-millionaires, and billionaires—included dramatic cuts to vital services, such as:

·         Dismantling Medicare and replacing it instead with a voucher program

·         Slashing Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age to 70

·         Gutting Pell Grants by more than $6 billion

·         Dramatically cutting resources for road and bridge projects

McCaskill voted against the proposals.

McCaskill—a longtime advocate of capping federal spending and an opponent of Congressional earmarks—supported and helped pass the federal budget currently in place as part of the Budget Control Act. That legislation set the budget for two years, cutting the federal budget deficit by more than $2 trillion over that time.

AARP Urges Finance Committee to Reject Cuts to Social Security for Deficit Reduction

AARP today submitted written testimony for the Senate Finance Committee's hearing on deficit reduction and Social Security. AARP recognizes the serious challenges that the nation's deficit and debt present, but believes that the hard earned Social Security benefits of millions of Americans should not be cut to reduce the deficit or as part of a budgetary exercise. 

As members of the committee and their colleagues consider ways to reduce the federal deficit, AARP is fighting to ensure arbitrary cuts, caps or triggers do not jeopardize the health care and retirement security of America's seniors and future retirees. As a part of its ongoing efforts, the Association announced last week a new initiative to protect benefits older Americans have earned through years of hard work from proposals that would cut Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction or to raise the debt ceiling. Excerpts from AARP's statement to the committee follow: 

"AARP believes that the nation's long-term debt requires attention and we are committed to lending our support to a balanced approach that addresses the nation's long-term fiscal challenges. However, older Americans recognize that Social Security is a self-financed program that has run surpluses for nearly 30 years and has not contributed to our large deficits." 



"Americans who have contributed payroll taxes over a lifetime of hard work into Social Security have earned their benefits, and the Trust Funds, like any other creditor, should be paid back the money it lent to the federal government in order to provide the workers who contributed a greater measure of financial security in their retirement years." 

"The debt held by the Social Security Trust Funds is a real obligation of the United States to its own people, and the American people, like any other creditor, expect that the money borrowed from them by the government will be paid back. If Congress chooses to not pay back the Trust Funds obligations and defaults on the U.S. Treasury bonds, then this will be a true "raid" on Social Security." 

"AARP generally opposes proposals that result in arbitrary, across-the-board, spending cuts that fail to distinguish between different types of spending and would take a meat ax approach to governing. In this regard, we are opposed to subjecting Social Security to sequestration procedures that serve to enforce spending caps." 

"Social Security is currently the principal source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one third of those households depend on Social Security benefits for nearly all (90 percent or more) of their income." 

"Given the already modest benefits current Social Security beneficiaries receive, the program's continued critical importance to future generations' income and retirement security, the system's dedicated financing, and the lack of a contributory impact on our current large deficits, AARP firmly believes that Social Security should not be targeted for cuts for deficit reduction or as part of a budget exercise to satisfy arbitrary spending thresholds." 

"More importantly, in the face of declining pensions, shrinking savings, falling home values, and longer life expectancies, Social Security deserves to have its own national conversation that focuses on preserving and strengthening the retirement security of Americans and their families for generations to come." 

Details on AARP's latest effort in the ongoing fight to protect Social Security and Medicare can be found here: www.aarp.org/protectseniors. 

For a complete copy of AARP's statement for the record, please contact AARP Media Relations at 202-434-2560 or media@aarp.org. 

Medicare Premiums to Wipe Out Social Security COLA

Medicare premium increases may wipe out the Social Security COLA increase for this year, the Associated Press reports. This would be the third straight year that Social Security recipients will not be able to see any increases in their income. By law, beneficiaries have their Part B premiums deducted from their Social Security payments each month. This is likely to increase hardships for people in the area because rising gas prices will mean rising food prices as well as higher costs for other goods as well.

McCaskill Proposes Deficit Reduction Plan Including Plan to Cut Medicare, Social Security

Claire McCaskill is lead sponsor of a plan that Republicans say is needed to do deficit reductions. It would involve across the board cuts including Social Security and Medicare. She is the only Democratic senator to sign off on this so far. The problem is that people value action on the economy more than they do on the deficit.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_44a43006-2e26-11e0-8d97-0017a4a78c22.html

Graves Blasts Deficits, Obama Health Plan, Cap & Trade

During a districtwide tour, Congressman Sam Graves came to Grant City last week and blasted the federal deficit, Obama's health plan, and Cap & Trade. Around 40-50 people attended the meeting at the Fairgrounds Building, in which he talked about his work in Washington and in which he took questions from constituents.



Regarding the deficit, he said that "if you did that, you would go broke." He said that the current deficit, which he said was higher than any in history, was "a legacy that we would have to pay back."



The theme of Graves' tour was "Main Street Matters," and he pointed to specific legislation that he said would be bad for small businesses. Cap and Trade would require all businesses to place caps on emissions or face a carbon tax. Proponents say that this legislation is necessary because they argue that man-made pollution will create long-term global warming that will result in rising ocean levels, leading to the displacement of millions or even billions of people. They envision worst-case scenarios in which low-level cities such as Boston or New Orleans or Florida would be flooded under by rising sea levels. But Graves said that the proposed solution was bad for this area because Missouri was a coal-dependent state that would be hit hard by any such legislation. Senator Claire McCaskill has publicly voiced concerns about Cap and Trade because of Missouri's coal dependence as well. He said that the result would be an estimated 60% increase in electricity rates for the state and that it would become more expensive to move goods across the country. Consequently, he said that it would be bad for the economy since it takes fuel to move goods. And Graves said that there was nothing to protect farms from these new offset requirements because he said that the EPA could overrule any agency who tries to exempt farms from Cap and Trade requirements.



"China and India love bills like this," said Graves. He said that a better alternative was an "all of the above" approach that he and his Republican colleagues were developing. Graves said that contrary to media reports that the Republicans had no ideas, he said that they did have ideas for energy policy but that the Democrats who control the committees would not give them a fair hearing. "We do have alternatives to the President's proposals and we have been trying to push these alternatives," he said.



Turning to healthcare, Graves turned to one of his favorite props, a huge copy of HR 3200, the Health Care Bill thousands of pages long, which he dropped on the table to demonstrate what he said was the ridiculous size of government. He said that the Democrats tried and failed to get that bill passed without letting people read it or knowing what it was about before the August recess. But he said that the August recess was bad for the bill's chances because people could read it and see for themselves what a bad bill it was. "We've read it and we don't like what we see," he said. For instance, on page 16, he said it states that after five years, no new individual plans could be written. In another section, according to Graves, it allows the government to set health insurance prices. Graves said that problem with a government-run healthcare system was that it would drive hospitals away and make healthcare even more inaccessible. "More and more hospitals are not taking Medicare or Medicaid anymore," he said. "And I don't want some bureaucrat deciding for me what healthcare choices I can make."



Graves accused the current Democratic leadership in the House of not listening to Republican ideas. "I've had a bill on associated healthcare plans that would drive down the cost of health insurance for three years, and it has never even gotten a hearing," he said. "We do have alternatives to what the Democrats are proposing. We are going around the county holding hearings on healthcare solutions, and the Democrats are calling us 'unamerican' because we get the word out that the way they are going to pay for all this is to cut Medicare by $500 billion to pay for all this."



Turning to the current budget deficit, Graves aid it was "absolutely unsustainable" and that the government was trying to balance it "on the backs of small businesses" with such things as surtaxes. He said that increased taxes were the "wrong approach" during a recession and that the current healthcare plan would add one to two trillion dollars to the deficit. "It doesn't mean we don't need changes," said Graves. For instance, he said allowing businesses to pool together to purchase insurance would drive rates down because he said that an insurance pool of 8,000 employees was more manageable from a risk standpoint than 10 employees. Graves said that would allow small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. Graves said that another solution was tort reform, saying that people in states that have it have to pay for those who don't.



Talking about possible changes down the road for local jurisdictions, local authorities have worried about changes coming down the road that they would not be able to meet financially. Graves said that what was being considered was a revision to the Clean Water Act that would give the EPA jurisdiction over all waterways; currently, they only have jurisdiction over navigable waterways. Graves feared that this change would mean that the EPA could regulate runoff from farms. "That would be a huge infringement on property rights," he said.



Addressing rumors that the BRO Program, which has funded 15 new bridges in the county, would be dropped, Graves said that it was part of the Transportation Bill; he explained that transportation bills are authorized every six years and that it would not be up for renewal for another 18 months. The administration can ask for an extension, which they have in this case. In other words, he said that nothing was written in stone regarding the BRO Program.



Asked for his thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine, which required radio stations to give equal time to differing points of view, Graves said that it was "basic business sense" for outlets to put what people wanted on the air.



Talking about Social Security, Graves said that it was in "a lot of trouble" and that the administration had already announced that there would be no cost of living increase for next year despite the fact that prices were still going up.



Graves said that in order for the administration's agenda to pass, it would have to be done this year. "Bills like this have to get done this year, because they would never pass in an election year," he said. He said that the problem was that "we are always told that we have to support this or that bailout or it will be the end of the world." By contrast, Graves said that the economy comes and goes in cycles and that it would have recovered without all of the government bailouts that he said added to an already massive deficit. "I voted against President Bush's bailout last year, the GM bailout, the stimulus bill, and the spending bill," he said. "The economy will recover regardless of what the government does, but the goverment can prolong a recession by passing more taxes." By contrast, Graves said that the proper way to stimulate an economy was to cut taxes "or at least don't increase taxes." He said that as opposed to passing "Speaker Pelosi's baby" of stimulus bills, "Let's give the people more money thru tax cuts so that they can stimulate the economy themselves."



The problem according to Graves was that "bad legislation is easy to pass but hard to get rid of." For instance, he said that the Healthcare Bill was written by Chairman Henry Waxman's staff and HHS staff and consisted of what he called "regurgitated ideas" from the failed health care reform efforts of 1993. And he said that the Stimulus Bill was originally considered to be an infrastructure bill but that only 3% or so of the funds were actually devoted to that.



Asked a question about the Guantanamo detainees, he said that that "they can rot in Guantanamo as far as I'm concerned." He explained that he had read the intelligence reports on them for three hours after getting the necessary clearances and "it takes a whole week to get over what these folks were capable of." Graves said that terrorists only needed to be right one time and we needed to be right all the time in combatting terrorism. "We weren't thinking ahead before 9/11," he said. Graves said he wasn't buying the argument that America's interrogation policies had hurt our standing in the world. "People gripe about us, but we're the first country they turn to when they need help," he said. "And I do not want the UN coming in and telling us what we have to do with ourselves."



Graves said that he was more excited by the "tax revolts" than he had been by anything in a long time. He said that part of the reason that people were fed up was because the government was "overreaching on simple little stuff" and coming up with "goofy ideas." For instance, he said that the Cap and Trade bill included a tax per head on cattle, which he said that Chairman Henry Waxman was preparing to slip in at some point.

Regarding ethanol, Graves said that he was continuing to fight for more ethanol standards, which he said that Big Oil was trying to block. "A blend of 50% soy/diesel is 50% out of their market share," he said. He called arguments that ethanol was not clean "ridiculous" and that pushing to end our dependence on foreign oil through ethanol was a "win-win." He said that the CBO has debunked one of the main arguments against ethanol, that it would raise the price of food. Graves said that as an example of the kind of ridiculous arguments he heard against ethanol, the Kansas City Star did an article about how ethanol was going to raise the price of popcorn at movies.

Addressing No Child Left Behind, Graves said that it was currently in limbo because "nobody wants to act on it." It was supposed to be reauthorized last year; however, it never was. He said he would like to see three things changed. The first was that it should differentiate between schools that miss one or two criteria and schools that miss all 13. Currently, a school that misses one criteria narrowly is treated as failing, just like schools that miss all 13. The second idea that Graves said he wanted to see was for children on IEP's to be removed from No Child Left Behind standards; he said that the goals of the IEP program and No Child Left Behind were in conflict with each other. The third thing that Graves said needed to be changed was that No Child Left Behind should measure students as they progress through school, not measure last year's fourth grade against this year's fourth grade. He said that "there is a big difference between one fourth grade class and the next" and that the law of averages might work in bigger schools, but that it doesn't in smaller schools.

On the flip side, Graves said that vouchers were not a solution for failing schools because he said that would take away what made private schools unique. He said that once the government started funding private schools like they do public schools, they would start making regulations for them like they currently do public schools. "A lot of public schools are just as good as private schools," he said.