Understanding “Sequestration”

Last year, Congress and the President worked together to pass the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) to address immediate and long-term fiscal concerns for our nation. (Read Generations United’s full statement on the BCA.) Because Congress couldn’t agree on how to cut the federal budget, automatic across the board cuts – known as sequestration - will kick in in January 2013.

These automatic cuts will be applied in a 50-50 split between defense and non-defense spending. This represents $54.7 billion in domestic spending which will be cut from a wide range of programs, including programs that are vital to children, youth and older adults.

Sequestration will affect both mandatory and discretionary domestic funding sources. Mandatory cuts will include:

• Cuts in Medicare payments to providers and insurance plans; those cuts are limited to 2 percent of such payments in any year, or $11 billion in 2013.  This means that Medicare providers will continue to bill Medicare in the normal way but will be reimbursed at a rate of 98 cents on the dollar.
• About $5.2 billion in cuts in the other mandatory programs, the biggest of which supports farm prices; other affected programs include student loans, vocational rehabilitation, mineral leasing payments, the Social Services Block Grant, and dozens of smaller programs.

Other domestic programs, which are funded through discretionary spending, would face even more drastic cuts of $35.5 billion – or 8.4%. The bulk of the cuts to domestic spending would be to important programs for children, youth and older adults. These include Head Start and K-12 education funding, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), employment and nutrition programs for older adults, and funding to implement the Affordable Care Act.

(For a listing of projected cuts, see the Coalition on Human Needs’ report Self-Inflicted Wounds: Protecting Families and Our Economy from Bad Budget Choices.)

Congress is currently discussing ways to avoid sequestration, but some proposals would protect defense spending at the expense of even deeper cuts to domestic programs, or even those exempted from cuts under the BCA (such as, Medicare, SNAP, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)).

Generations United urges Congress and the President to protect our nation’s most vulnerable and invest in our country’s future by supporting proposals which would provide adequate revenue to address the needs of our citizens.

Want to stay up-to-date on the federal budget debate? Subscribe to Generations United’s Policy Alerts.

Response to Ryan’s Budget Plan

Yesterday, Congressman Paul Ryan presented his latest “Pathway to Prosperity” budget. After examining the document, Generations United was deeply troubled by many of the proposals contained in it because they would significantly reduce funding to the critical social safety net for America’s most vulnerable children, youth and older adults. Here is our analysis of the Ryan budget.

Food and Nutrition

If enacted, Ryan’s plan would convert the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a block grant. In the long term, this would harm tens of millions of children, families, and older adults who rely on this critical safety net program. Hunger, food insecurity, and poverty are significant problems affecting millions of people in the U.S. and are expected to persist at high levels due to the weakened economy.

Higher Education

Additionally, the Ryan budget proposes to restructure Pell grants by “limiting the growth of financial aid and focusing it on low-income students.” Without specific language, it is hard to gauge the full impact of this proposal. When combined with additional budget cuts, this would surely limit access to this critical program that serves nearly 10 million college students.

Health Care

Proposed changes to essential health programs are even more concerning. The Ryan budget calls for repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The act provides critical health benefits to an estimated 19 million children and older adults by 2019 and includes provisions that would save $418 billion in Medicare costs over 10 years. In place of the ACA, the Ryan budget proposes that employers provide a cash supplement for their employees to purchase health care on the open market. That proposal ignores the troubling question of how our nation’s most vulnerable, including the unemployed or underemployed, will access health care.

The budget also proposes to convert Medicaid to a block grant, shifting the costs and risks to states, providers, and beneficiaries. With state budgets already overstretched, that move could jeopardize access to critical health services and put states in the difficult position of choosing between providing health care coverage for children's doctor visits or long-term care for older adults.

While ensuring existing Medicare benefits for those over 55, the Ryan budget would provide an unspecified amount of money directly to younger workers and require them to buy their own coverage in a way that may not guarantee the same coverage seniors have come to trust from Medicare. While Generations United believes the nation must address Medicare spending, this proposal sets up the potential for younger workers to not receive the care they need when they age.

Social Security

While the specifics in Ryan’s plan are unclear, we know his claims that it will “strengthen” Social Security are false. In reality, the provisions he has outlined would result in cuts for beneficiaries, many of whom increasingly rely on Social Security as a safeguard against poverty. Despite knowing first-hand the role Social Security plays in the lives of children and youth, Ryan refers to Social Security solely as a retirement security program. Social Security is more than a retirement program. Nearly seven million children receive part of their family income from Social Security today.

The Federal Budget

To balance the budget and reduce the deficit, the Ryan budget proposes measures that would dramatically slash spending and place children, youth and older adults at risk. These measures include relying on six separate committees to recommend cuts. These cuts would be directed at domestic spending including nutrition, Medicare, and Medicaid. Additionally, the Ryan budget would require caps on both discretionary and mandatory spending, beyond what was agreed to in the final budget agreement reached in fall 2011. Any increases to mandatory spending would require Congress to reduce other spending to pay for the increases and to “review mandatory spending programs” regularly. This sets up a dangerous situation where vital safety net services could be cut to pay for needed increases in mandatory spending. Generations United opposes any deficit reduction plan that puts the burden of cuts on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. We must ensure that budget reduction is done in a responsible manner that truly reflects shared sacrifice, without disproportionately burdening the most vulnerable.

We at Generations United strongly support investing in our country’s economy and people. These investments include creating opportunities for vulnerable people to overcome hunger and poverty, extending the rights of today’s youth to continue their education through college, and for today’s older adults to receive affordable care on a fixed income. These investments are needed more than ever in today’s economy. If we fail to support them, we fail our commitment to the generations before and after us. The true path to prosperity is through strengthening our safety net and investing in our country; not by cutting critical supports to Americans in need and balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.

-Eric Masten

Generations United Responds to Obama’s FY2013 Budget Request

Looking to “build an economy to last,” President Obama has released his proposed budget for FY 2013. Many of its provisions won’t come as a surprise: the President began laying the groundwork for his budget with his economic speech in Kansas in December and again during the State of the Union Address in January. The budget simply serves as the plan to put his aspirations into action.

After a preliminary review, Generations United’s Policy Team by and large gives the budget a thumbs up, cautioning that it does contain some cuts to social service programs. Here’s a brief summary of the major provisions that affect children, youth and older adults.

• The President’s budget provided important increases in Early Education Investments and Community Supports through increased funding for Head Start and Early Head Start and for an early learning challenge focus within the Race to the Top program. Generations United supports the continued integration of early childhood programs and the increased investment in these programs.
• The budget continues to fund our nation’s Commitment to Programs Serving Vulnerable Populations through important programs such as Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Unfortunately the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) was not given sufficient priority in a time of rising home energy costs and stressed family budgets.
• The budget takes important steps toward College Affordability and Tax Relief efforts by increasing the maximum Pell Grant award and making expansions of several tax credits permanent.
• The budget proposes a modest increase to continue the Support for Volunteerism, for important programs like Senior Corps, that does great work engaging seniors to serve children and at-risk youth in our communities.
• The FY13 budget provides funding to continue the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which provides critical health care coverage and support for our youngest and oldest generations.
• The President’s 2013 budget also includes a commitment to strengthen Social Security. Generations United urges the Administration to continue their commitment to this issue and pledge not to cut Social Security.

Generations United will continue to work with Members of Congress and the Administration on improving/supporting these and other critical programs for children and older adults in order to strengthen our country and support an economy built to last. 

Sign up here to receive Generations United’s Policy Alert on the President’s FY2013 budget on Thursday.

Generations United's Official Statement On The Budget Control Act

Generations United acknowledges that by passing the Budget Control Act, Congress and the President have taken a necessary step to avoid our nation’s default. As a fiscally responsible nation, we have a duty to both balance our budget and pay back those from whom we have borrowed in a responsible manner. Unfortunately, the debate in Washington seemed to devolve into a manufactured crisis over the federal government’s authority to borrow. As with any compromise, there's good news and bad news.

Generations United supports fiscal discipline and raising the debt limit to ensure that our nation satisfies its obligations, so long as it is done in a responsible way that does not do so on the backs of our nation’s most vulnerable children, youth, and older adults. The Budget Control Act is not perfect. It does however provide important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment by increasing the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013 and allowing the government to avoid a historic default. The Act also contains some important provisions that reduce the threat to programs and services vital to children, youth, and older adults.

However, the Budget Control Act’s new joint committee and trigger leave room for cuts that could endanger the economic security of young and old alike. Generations United urges the new joint committee members to take this opportunity to protect the young and old now and invest in our future by supporting proposals which would provide adequate revenue to address the needs of our citizens and opposing proposals which would deny individuals, young and old, access to vital programs while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, protecting corporate tax subsidies, and shifting the burden to the middle class.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Debt Deal: How it Could Impact Children, Youth, and Older Adults 

The Budget Control Act has two distinct stages. In the first stage, the debt limit will be raised in conjunction with more than $900 billion in spending cuts over the next ten years. In this phase, the Act contains some important provisions that reduce the threat to programs and services vital to children, youth and older adults

However, in the second stage, the risk of cuts to programs critical to the health and welfare of children, youth, and older adults increases. In this phase, an additional $1.5 trillion in budget reductions will be determined by a new joint bi-partisan committee of Congress, who can recommend revenues and cuts as part of its deficit reduction plan. Their recommendations are due by November 23. There are no specific protections for programs to children, youth, and older adults in this phase.

To reach an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts, the joint congressional committee could cut spending to intergenerational programs, such as the following:

• Education and Early Care: Head Start, child care, including the Child Care Development Block Grant (CCDBG), and K-12 education
• Safety-Net Programs: Social Security (ex. by reducing the annual cost of living adjustment, raising the retirement age), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
• Tax Credits: Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) & Child Tax Credit (CTC)
• Health Care: The joint congressional committee will have authority to recommend cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, as well as cuts to funding meant to assist states in implementing the ACA. Not only would this affect Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries directly, but by reducing or eliminating funding necessary to implement the ACA, these cuts could undermine the ACA’s ability to reach its ultimate goal of providing affordable health insurance coverage to all Americans.

If the committee’s recommendations are not enacted, a budget “trigger” will kick in, imposing mandatory across-the-board spending cuts matching the size of the debt ceiling increase.

If the joint congressional committee does not come to an agreement or Congress fails to enact recommendations made by the committee, then across-the-board cuts would be implemented (50% domestic, 50% military).

 
To stay up-to-date on this issue, sign up for Generations United's Policy Alert. 

What You Need to Know about Social Security

Have you ever heard someone say Social Security is going bankrupt? Or that Social Security won’t be there for your children and grandchildren? Unfortunately, some politicians have used these lies during debt ceiling debates to frighten the public and further their political agenda. The truth is, as Social Security celebrates its 76th anniversary, it remains one of the nation’s most successful, effective, and popular intergenerational programs.

To help arm intergenerational advocates with the truth about this issue, we’ve highlighted some facts everyone should know about this important program.

1. Social Security is NOT going bankrupt. Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus and can pay full benefits through 2036 without any changes. Furthermore, relatively modest changes could be made and would place the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond. To read more about these recommendations, check out the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) publication: Strengthening Social Security for the Long Run.

2. Social Security did not cause the deficit. Social Security has its own funding stream and did not contribute to the deficit. It should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Because Social Security operates from a dedicated self-funding stream, it is projected to be fully solvent until 2036.

3. Social Security will be there for you. Social Security has never missed a payment in 75 years. It is 100% solvent for the next 25 years and, in the highly unlikely case that Congress did not act before 2036, Social Security could still pay about three-fourths of benefits thereafter. With minor changes, Social Security can be solvent for years to come.

4. Social Security is more than a retirement program. It provides essential protections for people of all ages. Social Security pays more benefits to children than any other federal program, protecting 98 percent of the children in the U.S. in the event that they lose a parent. More than 6.5 million children receive part of their family income from Social Security.

5. Social Security benefits are modest. As politicians continue to discuss Social Security reform, it’s important to note that cuts to Social Security would dramatically affect an individual’s benefits. Social Security benefits are much more modest than many people realize. In June 2010, the average Social Security retirement benefit is about $14,000 a year. (The average disabled worker and aged widow received slightly less.)

6. Americans would rather pay more than see benefits cut. 87 percent of all Americans agree that they don’t mind paying for Social Security because of the security and stability it provides to millions of Americans. (Survey sponsored by NASI and Rockefeller Foundation in Fall 2009).

7. Almost half of all seniors would be poor without Social Security. Social Security lifts 13 million older adults age 65 and older out of poverty.

8. For many grandfamilies, Social Security is essential to their families’ survival. Social Security is a safeguard for families when tragedy strikes. The vast majority of grandparent caregivers did not plan to raise another family and unexpectedly find themselves caring for their grandchildren. Many of these grandparents live on fixed incomes and find themselves forced to make decisions between paying for diapers and formula for the children or prescription drugs for themselves. Even with Social Security benefits, 22 percent of grandparent-headed families are poor. Without Social Security benefits, the group’s poverty rate would be 59 percent or more. Read more about what’s at stake for grandfamilies in our publication: What’s at Stake for Children, Youth, and Grandfamilies.

9. Changes already enacted will cut Social Security benefits by 19 percent for future retirees. In the 1980s, Congress enacted changes to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security. Those changes cut retirement benefits by 19 percent for workers born in 1960 and later, and more cuts could undermine the basic economic security of future retirees. To help educate the public and Members of Congress on this complex issue, NASI recently released a report on the effects of this piece of legislation.

10. Social Security should be strengthened, not cut.

Generations United believes the best way to invest in and protect our nation’s most vulnerable citizens is to strengthen Social Security, not cut it. Social Security plays a critical role in providing economic security and indispensable protections for children, families, and retirees. Social Security provides vital support for children, in addition to older adults, covering 98 percent of all children in the event of the death or disability of a caregiver.

In order to improve Social Security for future generations, Generations United continues to advocate for one low-cost recommendation that would strengthen Social Security for future generations: reinstating the student benefit. Restoring the Social Security student benefit would offer students whose parents are deceased and disabled the support they need to become the educated workforce our country’s economy needs. To read more about our recommendation, download our publication Social Security: What's at Stake for Children, Youth, and Grandfamilies.


This article is the final installment in Generations United’s Budget Blog Series.

The House Budget: What’s In Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”, & How Would It Affect Me?

The Path to Prosperity, introduced by Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been at the epicenter of the 2012 budget debate. After passing the U.S. House of Representatives, this House Budget Resolution was struck down in the Senate. However, the plan remains very relevant today, as portions of the plan, particularly deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, are still being considered.

According to a recent poll by Kaiser, a majority of Americans say they are opposed to cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs that provide critical support to older adults and children. Cuts proposed by the House Budget Resolution would impact services for older adults and children dramatically. If the plan was enacted, federal spending would shrink to about 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2015 – this is the lowest level since 1951, a time when federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid didn’t even exist.

Generations United opposes these harmful cuts and urges Congress to balance the budget in a responsible way that doesn't do so on the backs of our nation's children, older adults, and other vulnerable groups.  For these reasons, it is important for individuals of all ages to learn about the spending cuts proposed by the House Budget and advocate for shared sacrifice in any upcoming budget proposal.

Among others, the budget plan calls for the following cuts:

·         $2.17 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care programs.

·         $350 billion from other mandatory programs serving low-income Americans. For  instance, The Ryan Plan implies that federal funding for SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as the food stamp program) would be substantially reduced.

·         $400 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs. For example, The Ryan Plan identifies Pell Grants and low-income housing assistance as prime targets for substantial cuts.  

In addition, the budget plan calls for the following harmful reforms:

 

Repealing the Affordable Care Act

Repealing the new health care law would remove access to affordable, high-quality, comprehensive health care coverage for children, youth, people with disabilities, families and older adults.  Without this historic piece of legislation, insurance companies will go back to denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions.  Women may be charged more than men for insurance, simply because of their gender.  And, families may continue to go without the affordable, quality care they deserved. Moreover, repealing the ACA would not lower health care costs. In fact, a recent report estimates that state governments will actually save $90 billion from 2014 to 2019 because of implementation of the ACA’s major reforms.

Converting Medicaid into a Block Grant 

This proposal would cut Medicaid funding by $771 billion over the next ten years and convert it to a block grant. As a result, states would receive less money from the federal government to assist low-income individuals who are eligible, leaving states with inadequate funding. With less federal dollars to provide the same services, the block grant would ultimately force states to shift these costs onto the backs of providers and beneficiaries in the midst of tough economic times.  This could increase costs and jeopardize the delivery of critical health care services for older adults receiving Medicaid benefits for long-term care and the more than 30 million children Medicaid serves.

Turning Medicare into a Voucher Program

The House Budget Resolution would turn Medicare into a voucher program in which older adults receive a limited amount to buy increasingly expensive private health insurance. If passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that older adults' out-of-pocket medical costs would rise twice as fast as currently projected. Recent polls show that the public is strongly opposed to cuts to Medicare, with many noting Medicare's important role in providing financial security in their retirement.

Converting The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a Block Grant 

The House Budget Resolution would cut SNAP (formerly known as the food stamp program) by nearly 20 percent and convert the program into a block grant. By capping the amount of federal funding the program can receive, a block grant structure would eliminate SNAP’s ability to respond to rising need. For example, due to the economic downturn, the demand for SNAP benefits for all generations has increased. With a substantial loss in federal funding, it will be increasingly difficult for states to provide benefits to those eligible. Almost a third of SNAP beneficiaries are older adults or individuals with disabilities, and almost three-quarters of SNAP benefits are used by families with children.

For more in-depth information on the how the House Budget Resolution would impact children and older adults, please review the following resources from our partners:

Child Welfare League of America:   What Does a Medicaid Block Grant Mean for Children in Child Welfare

AARP: House Republicans Propose Remake of Medicare and Medicaid 

Center on Budget & Policy Priorities:

Ryan Budget Would Increase Health Care Spending for Medicare Beneficiaries 

Ryan Plan Specifies Spending Path That Would Nearly End Most of Government Other Than Social Security, Health Care, and Defense by 2050

Chairman Ryan Gets Nearly Two-Thirds of His Huge Budget Cuts From Programs for Lower-Income Americans

House-Passed Proposal to Block-Grant and Cut SNAP (Food Stamps) Rests on False Claims About Program Growth

This article is the second installment in Generations United’s Budget Blog Series.

 

5 Things Intergenerational Advocates Should Know About the National Debt and Deficit

The ongoing debate surrounding the national debt and deficit can be confusing, especially when it comes to discerning facts from misleading political rhetoric. Generations United has identified five key points related to the national deficit that our members should know about in order to be well informed on this very important issue;

1. The national debt itself is not a measure of financial impact across generations.

What is important is how the debt affects the economy at the time when the government borrows the money. Whether or not the national debt will be detrimental to future generations is determined by the quality of the society that we pass on. If the debt is increased by positive investments (such as education and health care) we ensure a healthier workforce and the future economy will benefit as a result.

2. During periods of economic weakness, deficit spending actually can grow the economy.

While a deficit can in principle lead to higher interest rates and lower productivity when the economy is functioning near capacity, it actually can help bolster the economy during a downturn. The primary issue during a recession is a lack of demand. Government spending and/or tax cuts at that time can increase demand as well as output and employment. Higher output means that companies will invest more and that future generations will be made wealthier as a result.

3. The majority of the forecasted budget deficit problem is caused by high and rising costs in the private healthcare sector.

The federal government pays out over half of the country’s total health care costs via Medicare, Medicaid, and other related programs. Most of that money goes to the private health care sector. The cost of this care in the coming years is projected to rise far more rapidly than our current rate of economic growth. If we can find a way to control the increasing cost of health care, then the budget deficit will become much more manageable.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 takes significant steps to reduce the increasing cost of health care by ensuring that all Americans have access to preventative care services and affordable coverage. By creating incentives to treat health care issues earlier and in primary care facilities, rather than costly emergency rooms, the ACA will reduce health care costs considerably over time; most of these changes will occur beginning in 2014, with the introduction of state-based “exchanges,” marketplaces where consumers and small business owners can purchase affordable health insurance, much like shopping online for a plane ticket or a hotel room. According to a recent study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, state governments will spend at least $90 billion less from 2014 to 2019 because of the ACA’s reforms.

4. Social Security has its own funding stream, and it will be fully funded until 2036.

Some people have suggested fixing the deficit by cutting into Social Security. In reality, Social Security did not contribute to the deficit, and it should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause. Because Social Security operates from a dedicated self-funding stream, it is projected to be fully solvent until 2036.

Much of the current debate around the national deficit has focused on the idea of cutting into Social Security to help alleviate the current and projected budgetary shortfalls. Generations United strongly opposes that course of action. It makes little sense to cut benefits from a program that has proven itself to be self-sustaining, especially a program like Social Security that is so valuable to all generations. Furthermore, the amount of the deficit that could be reduced by cutting into Social Security pales in comparison to the amount of the deficit that could be reduced by letting the tax cuts of the early 2000s expire or reducing the spending allocated to conflicts overseas and addressing the rising private health care costs.

5. A constitutional balanced budget amendment means cuts to critical programs.

A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would threaten our economic security while raising a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal functions. Requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, would raise serious risks of tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. That’s because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just when the economy is weak or already in recession — the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise.

Generations United hopes that these five key points have answered some of the questions that our members may have had concerning the national debt and deficit.

For more information on these issues, please visit the following sites:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Center for Economic and Policy Research



This article is the first installment in Generations United’s Budget Blog Series.

Generations United Statement on FY2012 Budget Proposal

Yesterday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced his budget proposal for FY2012. Though Generations United supports the need to reduce the country’s deficit based on a principle of shared sacrifice, we strongly oppose Congressman Ryan’s proposal.

If enacted, it would have the effect in the long term of harming millions of our nation’s children, older adults, and other vulnerable groups. This plan would have devastating effects on our education and health systems, shift financial burdens to states, eliminate crucial safety net programs that help struggling families, and further weaken our economy.

The White House aptly summarized the effects of this proposal in a statement released yesterday. “It cuts taxes for millionaires and special interests while placing a greater burden on seniors who depend on Medicare or live in nursing homes, families struggling with a child who has serious disabilities, workers who have lost their health care coverage and students and their families who rely on Pell grants.”

Generations United opposes these harmful cuts and urges Congress to balance the budget in a responsible way that doesn't do so on the backs of our nation's most vulnerable groups.

Gerson off Target

Michael Gerson has distinguished himself in the past as a protector of the vulnerable in society. However, he seems to have lost sight of his own ideals in his column today in the Washington Post. Instead of commending young people in this country for recognizing the importance of shared rights and responsibilities, Gerson tries to pit the young and old against each other.

One of the big goals of health care reform is to provide insurance to those that cannot afford coverage in the current market – this includes children and older adults under 65. In order to extend coverage to the uninsured, you have to spread the risk of becoming sick across society. Gerson also confuses mandating coverage for the young working population with providing supports to children. Children, like seniors often are priced out of the insurance market (they have trouble adding to their parents income). One of the best provisions of the House health care bill is to extend Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the federal poverty limit. The provision will help ensure children uninsured and those currently in CHIP are covered.

Budget and deficit hawks continually quack (or whatever sound a hawk makes), “Would someone please think of the grandchildren.” In reality, they rarely propose an actual increase in benefits for children and grandchildren. Their Maude Flanders-like-retort is often just a smoke screen for a trying to reduce public spending for everyone. They also routinely mistake entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicaid as simply a payout to senior voters, but they are much more. Over six million children receive a cash benefit from Social Security and Medicaid provides essential medical care to the poorest children in society.

In 1983, Bill Bradley called Social Security, “the best expression of community that we have in this country today.” If you want to provide supports for our country’s children and grandchildren, the best way to do so is to support programs that broadly spread risks and supports across society like health care reform.

-Terence Kane

Response to Samuelson

In yesterday’s Washington Post Robert Samuelson addressed a memo to young voters and asked them to get angry because they are supposedly being duped by an alliance of senior voters and the two presidential campaigns in an effort to ignore them and their issues. Samuelson has long been banging the drum for entitlement and budget reform, and he often raises legitimate questions, but his solutions and tactics are misplaced and wrongheaded.

There’s a good reason why young voters aren’t angry with seniors (much to Samuelson’s dismay); after all, they care about their own parents and grandparents and they understand that they too will age. Further, he narrowly lays the blame of the budget deficit on older adults. He omits the cost of tax expenditures, bail outs, two wars, and the inefficiencies in our health system.

Older Americans do care about youth and how they will leave the country for them. It’s the reason we’ve seen such an up rise in senior civic engagement, especially with children and youth. GU’s Seniors4Kids is a perfect example of elders selflessly advocating for a brighter beginning for a younger generation. If you have a moment, please leave a comment on the Washington Post and remind Samuelson that we are all in this together, both young and old and the only way to solve our challenges, which are many, is to work together. Click here for the article and here to leave a comment.