Former House Aging Committee Director Robert Weiner Says WashPost Social Security Sunday Lead Story Unnecessarily Frightens Seniors, Inaccurate, Endemic of Recent Media Trend Ignoring 1983 Federal Deal Protecting Social Security Solvency

News provided by

Oct 31, 2011, 05:01 ET

WEINER: SOCIAL SECURITY IS LIKE BANK THAT CAN LEND SURPLUS FOR OTHER PURPOSES BUT DOES NOT NEGATE THE OBLIGATION TO REPAY, DOES NOT CREATE SOCIAL SECURITY "DEBT", BUT REQUIRES FEDS TO MAKE UP DIFFERENCE; IF FAIL TO HONOR 1983 REAGAN-O'NEILL-PEPPER DEAL, WHY SHOULD SENIORS BELIEVE FUTURE DEAL?

SAYS SUPERCOMMITTEE AND DEMS WOULD CEDE ISSUE TO R'S UNNECESSARILY IF INCLUDE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE IN DEBT REDUCTION

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former House Aging Committee Chief of Staff Robert Weiner, later a White House spokesman, said that "Sunday's Washington Post lead story, 'Social Security Adding Billions to Budget Woes... Cash Negative Milestone Came Early,' "unnecessarily frightens seniors, distorts the national debate on the debt and is simply wrong. It's part of a damaging national trend of sloppy journalism that buys into an often-repeated untruth about Social Security and must stop. The Post piece is endemic of a recent media trend ignoring the 1983 federal deal – a grand compromise between President Reagan and the then Democrat-controlled Congress, that saved Social Security by protecting its funds and solvency through 2037 and is routinely ignored by the media and advocates of 'reform' (ie cuts) today."

Weiner, who was Director of the House Aging Committee under seniors hero Cong. Claude Pepper (D-FL) (Pepper was instrumental and co-author of the 1983 deal), communications director of the House Government Operations Committee under Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), and later a spokesman for six years in the Clinton White House, asserted: "Social Security is like a bank that can lend its surplus to the federal government for other purposes, but doing so does not negate the bank's obligation to make up the difference and repay its customers (Social Security recipients) under the 1983 Ronald Reagan-Tip O'Neill-Claude Pepper deal. If the feds fail to honor the 1983 Reagan-O'Neill Pepper deal, why should seniors believe any future deal?" Weiner asked.

"To cut a national deficit by cutting Social Security, which does not have a deficit, is theft from seniors who have paid in. If a bank told a customer, 'Sorry. We've spent your money on other items,' would anyone accept that or say: 'Fine, you made money on my money but you still owe me mine. Pay up.'"

Weiner pointed to the "fallacy of the Post's assertion of a cash-negative milestone. There have actually been 11 years since 1963—according to the Social Security Trustees' own website and information—where the Trust Fund surplus has easily absorbed a temporary debt, as there is this year under the national economic crisis. Social Security has nearly three TRILLION dollars in surplus based on what seniors have paid in. This year's $46 billion shortfall is a blip and it's covered – sorry if other programs might have to pay what they owe."

"Do we say we won't pay defense contractors or the FBI because we have a deficit? Seniors are every bit as much a part of America's values, and it's their money that laid the Social Security funding base that the feds now want to use for other things."

"President Obama was exactly right when he said he would take Social Security off the table and treat it on a 'separate track' for long term solvency. It has NOTHING to do with any deficit calculation for the ten-year deal the Supercommittee is supposed to come up with. In fact, because the baby boomers are part of a record HIGH 2.7 -per family birth rate BUT they themselves have a record LOW 2.1-per family baby rate, the 23% shortfall beginning in 2037 will be followed by a SURPLUS some 15 years later when FEWER benefits need to be paid out. The media never cites that point."

"Moreover, Social Security has reduced poverty among seniors by approximately 50% and Medicare by another 25% for a total of poverty reduction among seniors of approximately 75%. Seniors were the only group this year that did not increase the percent in poverty – their total remains 7% in poverty, a real achievement. ANY cuts to the program will mean a high proportion of people going BACK into poverty, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and emergency health coverage. In other words, cutting Social Security or Medicare will COST the nation money."

"Cong John Conyers (D-MI), Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus, this week led a group of Progressive, Black, and Hispanic Caucus members in a news conference, telling the Supercommittee, 'NO cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.' He is right. There is a real question as to why Democrats or the White House would give up such a strong base issue of No Medicare or Social Security cuts that counters some of the other economic bad news and actually turned around a 30-year Republican New York district to a Democratic win earlier this year. It is perhaps the best issue the Democrats have. Why cede the ground to the Republicans and why give them cover to say there is any validity to Republican Budget Chair Paul Ryan's proposed slashing of Medicare by half as voted by all House Republicans, and his earlier call for cutting Social Security? The new Health Care Act guarantees an additional nine years of solvency for Medicare, according to CBO, also effectively reducing it from the Supercommittee's ten-year budget deficit needs except for perhaps the final year."

"Finally, the Post talked about Social Security paying out an average $913,000 in return for $717,000. What about interest earned? Even beyond that, is that such a big deal? Do defense contractors pay the government back their profits? Isn't this the least we can afford for our seniors—and ourselves as we too age in the future? Is that such a bad thing for the United States of America to afford?" Weiner concluded.

Since leaving the White House, Weiner has written over 30 opeds in major papers on Social Security, Medicare, and health care:

SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND PENSIONS