Rarely do you see two of our country's most intractable problems - illegal immigration and the solvency of Social Security - lumped together in the same sentence.
I would like to propose an imperfect idea that could address both problems at once. The plan wouldn't have to work that well to be an improvement on the current immigration system, and we know the financing problems of Social Security are dire.
So here goes: We allow immigrant workers to come to the United States to work for up to three years. The cost of a work permit would be that immigrant workers and/or their employers would have to pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Workers would not be able to get benefits from either system even though they paid taxes, thereby lessening the impact of the looming Baby Boomer retirement on both programs.
Some illegal immigrants pay such taxes now and cannot benefit, but routinizing this arrangement would maximize taxes paid and reduce identity theft. Employers would get employees, and workers would get a job that enabled them to return money to their home nation. At the end of three years, they would return home.
I start out with two basic assumptions - that the benefits of illegal immigration accrue mostly to the immigrants and their employers, and that these same benefits outweigh the costs to society as a whole.
If it were the other way around, we would have found a more effective means of stopping illegal immigration. The benefits include the contribution of illegal workers to the economy, perhaps doing jobs that citizens don't want. Costs include health care and other social services, notably schooling that is provided to workers and their children.
The intangible benefits and costs of the cultural diversity inherent with illegal immigration are difficult to estimate, and I doubt if any analysis on such a subjective question would change the views of many people, so I assume they are a wash.
I acknowledge there are many problems with my idea. First, one reason illegal labor is attractive to employers is because they can presumably pay such workers lower wages. Such employers are unlikely to want any change.
Second, lack of health insurance and the related issues of a person receiving care in an emergency room will remain. We would need to develop a catastrophic insurance scheme that could be financed primarily or fully by immigrant workers. (most workers are likely to be young and healthy).
Third, what if they have kids while in the U.S.? Currently, that child is an American citizen, with all the afforded rights. There have been suggestions of changing the Constitution so that children so born would not be citizens. What about children born to parents of mixed status (one parent a citizen, the other not)? This is a tangled issue with many dimensions, and some sort of compromise solution would have to be worked out.
Fourth, this doesn't address the illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. I view the deportation of 12 million people as unrealistic, so some form of amnesty is inevitable.
And, finally, how do we make sure the workers leave the country when their three years are up? The best hope of doing so is transforming a now-illegal labor market into a workable guest worker program that can be monitored.
These problems notwithstanding, the biggest benefit of my idea is that it acknowledges that some employers now see fit to hire illegal immigrants. If they didn't, there wouldn't be an illegal immigration problem. The goal should be to maintain this source of labor if it is truly important to our economy, but to do so in a way that broadens the benefits of now-illegal labor by helping to address the financing problems of Social Security and Medicare.
And if it turned out that persons no longer wanted to come to work under this arrangement, or that employers no longer wanted to hire them because they would be forced to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, then we would have developed a market-based solution to illegal immigration where an interdiction approach has not worked, and seems unrealistic.
By Donald H. Taylor Jr.
Donald H. Taylor Jr. is an associate professor of public policy at Duke who blogs at www.donaldhtaylorjr.blogspot.com
----
Showing posts with label social security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social security. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Is There Any Escape From Medicare?
/PRNewswire/ -- Although people may believe that their insurance worries are over once they qualify for Medicare, both doctors and patients are looking for a private option--especially with Medicare's looming bankruptcy, and ObamaCare's promise to cut half a trillion dollars from it to help fund universal coverage.
Many doctors can't pay their rent on Medicare-allowed fees. Some Medicare patients can't find a doctor willing to see them at all, much less to provide VIP service.
Medicare is supposed to be "voluntary"--except of course for paying the tax. Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) explores what that means, in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. (http://www.jpands.org/vol15no2/orient.pdf)
The original Medicare law promised that the federal government would not interfere in the practice of medicine. Cost escalation, however, quickly led to price controls, "utilization review," and "quality assurance." Courts held that these were constitutional--because Medicare participation is "voluntary." By accepting money from Medicare, a doctor "volunteers" to be bound by more than 100,000 pages of rules.
Physicians are "opting out" of Medicare at an accelerating rate. Additionally, now that Medicare is requiring onerous procedures to enroll, or to "revalidate" enrollment, more physicians are asking why they should.
Medicare has apparently anticipated this exodus. Its new Provider Enrollment and Chain Ownership System (PECOS) may make it impossible for physicians to treat seniors outside the system--or at least for them to order or refer for any service that might be covered by Medicare.
Seniors can't avoid being "covered" by Medicare Part A without relinquishing all Social Security benefits. Moreover, their private insurance options were destroyed when Medicare went into effect.
Why should anyone want to pay for things that are supposed to be free? It's the only way to escape government oversight and rationing. Some patients might feel that a one-hour visit with a physician focused on their problems might be worth more than the government pays for six 10-minute encounters with a nurse practitioner devoted to a government-approved checklist.
Will government be able to keep doctors from offering--and thus patients from receiving--self-paid care? Apparently, it is trying to do so.
Many doctors can't pay their rent on Medicare-allowed fees. Some Medicare patients can't find a doctor willing to see them at all, much less to provide VIP service.
Medicare is supposed to be "voluntary"--except of course for paying the tax. Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) explores what that means, in the summer issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. (http://www.jpands.org/vol15no2/orient.pdf)
The original Medicare law promised that the federal government would not interfere in the practice of medicine. Cost escalation, however, quickly led to price controls, "utilization review," and "quality assurance." Courts held that these were constitutional--because Medicare participation is "voluntary." By accepting money from Medicare, a doctor "volunteers" to be bound by more than 100,000 pages of rules.
Physicians are "opting out" of Medicare at an accelerating rate. Additionally, now that Medicare is requiring onerous procedures to enroll, or to "revalidate" enrollment, more physicians are asking why they should.
Medicare has apparently anticipated this exodus. Its new Provider Enrollment and Chain Ownership System (PECOS) may make it impossible for physicians to treat seniors outside the system--or at least for them to order or refer for any service that might be covered by Medicare.
Seniors can't avoid being "covered" by Medicare Part A without relinquishing all Social Security benefits. Moreover, their private insurance options were destroyed when Medicare went into effect.
Why should anyone want to pay for things that are supposed to be free? It's the only way to escape government oversight and rationing. Some patients might feel that a one-hour visit with a physician focused on their problems might be worth more than the government pays for six 10-minute encounters with a nurse practitioner devoted to a government-approved checklist.
Will government be able to keep doctors from offering--and thus patients from receiving--self-paid care? Apparently, it is trying to do so.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Congressional Pay Grows 15 Times Faster Than Social Security Checks
/PRNewswire/ -- Seniors who retired in 1990 with the average Social Security benefit have seen their annual payments increase by just $4,967 over the past 20 years. During the same time period, members of Congress have awarded themselves pay raises totaling $77,400 per year - a whopping 1,458 percent more than seniors.
The analysis was conducted by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors advocacy groups with 1.2 million supporters.
According to the Social Security Administration, a senior receiving the average Social Security benefit in 1990 received $554.50 per month. A TSCL analysis found that the same senior is receiving a monthly benefit of $968.40 today, due to the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) intended to help seniors keep up with inflation.
*Note: Members of the House of Representatives have had a greater salary increase than Senators since 1990 because their base pay in 1990 was slightly lower.
For the first time since the automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) was introduced in 1975, seniors are receiving no COLA this year. Lawmakers, however, receive an automatic pay raise each year without having to cast a vote for it; instead, they would have to vote to block their annual pay raise. Lawmakers continue to enjoy massive wealth - a 2008 study by the Center for Responsive Politics reported that fully 61 of 100 senators were millionaires.
"This is a perfect example of the two types of rules we've gotten too used to seeing - those that politicians make for themselves, and those they make for the rest of us," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League. "As lawmakers enjoy their six-figure incomes, they've too often turned a blind eye to the desperate plight of America's seniors, who are struggling harder than ever to make ends meet."
TSCL supports H.R. 4720, the "Taking Responsibility for Congressional Pay Act," introduced by Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. The bill currently has 27 co-sponsors.
The proposal would cut congressional pay by five percent next year, representing the first pay cut for lawmakers since the Great Depression. The $8,700-per-lawmaker cut would save taxpayers more than $4.6 million.
TSCL encourages its members to contact their lawmakers and request that they co-sponsor the bill.
"Although the majority of lawmakers are happy with the status quo, more than two dozen have already supported a congressional pay cut. We believe that these lawmakers - truly great role models who are willing to endure personal sacrifice during these difficult economic times - deserve our gratitude," said Shannon Benton, TSCL's executive director. "Therefore, we will post the names of all of this bill's supporters to our website, at www.SeniorsLeague.org."
With 1.2 million supporters, The Senior Citizens League (www.SeniorsLeague.org) is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. TSCL is a proud affiliate of The Retired Enlisted Association.
The analysis was conducted by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors advocacy groups with 1.2 million supporters.
According to the Social Security Administration, a senior receiving the average Social Security benefit in 1990 received $554.50 per month. A TSCL analysis found that the same senior is receiving a monthly benefit of $968.40 today, due to the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) intended to help seniors keep up with inflation.
ANNUAL PAY IN ANNUAL PAY IN % MORE THAN
1990 2010 INCREASE, SENIORS
1990 - 2010
(IN DOLLARS)
AVERAGE SENIOR $6,654 $11,621 $4,967 N/A
SOCIAL SECURITY
(RETIRED IN
1990)
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES $96,600 $174,000 $77,400 1,458%
SENATORS $98,400 $174,000 $75,600 1,422%*Note: Members of the House of Representatives have had a greater salary increase than Senators since 1990 because their base pay in 1990 was slightly lower.
For the first time since the automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) was introduced in 1975, seniors are receiving no COLA this year. Lawmakers, however, receive an automatic pay raise each year without having to cast a vote for it; instead, they would have to vote to block their annual pay raise. Lawmakers continue to enjoy massive wealth - a 2008 study by the Center for Responsive Politics reported that fully 61 of 100 senators were millionaires.
"This is a perfect example of the two types of rules we've gotten too used to seeing - those that politicians make for themselves, and those they make for the rest of us," said Daniel O'Connell, chairman of The Senior Citizens League. "As lawmakers enjoy their six-figure incomes, they've too often turned a blind eye to the desperate plight of America's seniors, who are struggling harder than ever to make ends meet."
TSCL supports H.R. 4720, the "Taking Responsibility for Congressional Pay Act," introduced by Arizona Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick. The bill currently has 27 co-sponsors.
The proposal would cut congressional pay by five percent next year, representing the first pay cut for lawmakers since the Great Depression. The $8,700-per-lawmaker cut would save taxpayers more than $4.6 million.
TSCL encourages its members to contact their lawmakers and request that they co-sponsor the bill.
"Although the majority of lawmakers are happy with the status quo, more than two dozen have already supported a congressional pay cut. We believe that these lawmakers - truly great role models who are willing to endure personal sacrifice during these difficult economic times - deserve our gratitude," said Shannon Benton, TSCL's executive director. "Therefore, we will post the names of all of this bill's supporters to our website, at www.SeniorsLeague.org."
With 1.2 million supporters, The Senior Citizens League (www.SeniorsLeague.org) is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. TSCL is a proud affiliate of The Retired Enlisted Association.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Seniors Coalition: 'Mr. President, Senior Citizens Cannot and Will Not Bail You Out'
/Standard Newswire/ -- The Seniors Coalition, which represents the interests of over four million American senior citizens, today blasted comments by President Obama indicating that he would entertain the idea of cutting Social Security benefits in order to pay for his domestic spending priorities and bring down the federal budget deficit. The President's comments were made to BusinessWeek magazine.
"The President's willingness to pay for his spending spree by slashing Social Security benefits is yet
another direct attack on America's senior citizens and the Seniors Coalition will oppose it using every
resource we can muster," says Phil Theodosiou, The Seniors Coalition's Executive Director. "The Obama Administration has thrown fiscal responsibility completely out the window and now that the President needs more money to continue with his reckless policies he is looking to the elderly to bail him out. Mr. President, seniors citizens cannot and will not bail you out."
"In order to bring down the deficit the Administration needs to start at the top and begin cutting. No more
taxpayer cars for members of Congress. Cut back on the number of aides following the First Lady around. Then, use all repaid TARP money to pay down the deficit and simply not spend the hundreds of billions dollars in wasteful stimulus money that has not been spent. The fact that the administration will not even take these simple steps shows that President Obama is not serious about deficit reduction and is simply looking to use Social Security as another source of cash for his domestic spending spree," Theodosiou says. "And perhaps most importantly, the government must pay back the iou's to the social security trust fund now. That will be a great start in helping main street."
The Seniors Coalition is the nation's leading free- market senior education and advocacy organization
representing more than 4 million seniors. The mission of The Seniors Coalition (TSC) is to protect
the quality of life and economic well-being that older Americans have earned while supporting common
sense solutions to the challenges of the future. To that end, TSC lobbies government at both the federal and state levels.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"The President's willingness to pay for his spending spree by slashing Social Security benefits is yet
another direct attack on America's senior citizens and the Seniors Coalition will oppose it using every
resource we can muster," says Phil Theodosiou, The Seniors Coalition's Executive Director. "The Obama Administration has thrown fiscal responsibility completely out the window and now that the President needs more money to continue with his reckless policies he is looking to the elderly to bail him out. Mr. President, seniors citizens cannot and will not bail you out."
"In order to bring down the deficit the Administration needs to start at the top and begin cutting. No more
taxpayer cars for members of Congress. Cut back on the number of aides following the First Lady around. Then, use all repaid TARP money to pay down the deficit and simply not spend the hundreds of billions dollars in wasteful stimulus money that has not been spent. The fact that the administration will not even take these simple steps shows that President Obama is not serious about deficit reduction and is simply looking to use Social Security as another source of cash for his domestic spending spree," Theodosiou says. "And perhaps most importantly, the government must pay back the iou's to the social security trust fund now. That will be a great start in helping main street."
The Seniors Coalition is the nation's leading free- market senior education and advocacy organization
representing more than 4 million seniors. The mission of The Seniors Coalition (TSC) is to protect
the quality of life and economic well-being that older Americans have earned while supporting common
sense solutions to the challenges of the future. To that end, TSC lobbies government at both the federal and state levels.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
New National Ad Campaign Targeting Congress, Seniors Say 'DON'T CUT MEDICARE!'
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, the 60 Plus Association released a new TV ad targeting the Democrat Congress' plan to cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and announced a phone call campaign into the districts of 78 Members of the House of Representatives.
The ad features members of our Greatest Generation begging Congress not to cut Medicare to pay for health care reform. The 30 second TV ad begins running nationally on cable today. See the ad at www.60plus.org.
The phone calls target Members of the House of Representatives and urge concerned citizens to call their Member and urge them not to cut Medicare.
"This bill adds 111 entitlements and the only one it cuts is Medicare, how is this fair to our greatest generation? Seniors have already lost their Social Security COLA and now Speaker Pelosi wants to cut Medicare, too. As yesterday's elections prove, seniors are upset. Seniors are taking a stand and say 'Don't cut our Medicare,'" said Jim Martin, president of 60 Plus.
Titled "Enough -- Congress" the ad highlights seniors speaking in their own words to the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid want to cut up to $500 billion from Medicare. This could mean life-saving drugs could be withheld and seniors could even be prevented from seeing their own doctors.
The ad ends with a senior stating "Don't make us pay for health care reform by cutting Medicare. We've sacrificed enough."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The ad features members of our Greatest Generation begging Congress not to cut Medicare to pay for health care reform. The 30 second TV ad begins running nationally on cable today. See the ad at www.60plus.org.
The phone calls target Members of the House of Representatives and urge concerned citizens to call their Member and urge them not to cut Medicare.
"This bill adds 111 entitlements and the only one it cuts is Medicare, how is this fair to our greatest generation? Seniors have already lost their Social Security COLA and now Speaker Pelosi wants to cut Medicare, too. As yesterday's elections prove, seniors are upset. Seniors are taking a stand and say 'Don't cut our Medicare,'" said Jim Martin, president of 60 Plus.
Titled "Enough -- Congress" the ad highlights seniors speaking in their own words to the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid want to cut up to $500 billion from Medicare. This could mean life-saving drugs could be withheld and seniors could even be prevented from seeing their own doctors.
The ad ends with a senior stating "Don't make us pay for health care reform by cutting Medicare. We've sacrificed enough."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
More Dire Warnings for Social Security
/PRNewswire / -- In response to the dire warnings issued in today's Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report, RetireSafe and its 400,000 senior supporters called on the President and Congress to take immediate action to secure the promised benefits older Americans rely on.
"With unfunded liabilities of up to $100 trillion and the Social Security Trust Fund scheduled to pay out more than it takes in by 2016, America's seniors deserve to know that the Social Security benefits they rely on to make ends meet will still be there for them," said RetireSafe President Michelle Plasari.
According to Plasari, there are simple ways to make Social Security more secure for current and near retirees:
Guaranteed Benefits. Currently, Social Security benefits are not a sure thing. They can be cut by Congress on a whim. Congress has continually used incoming Social Security dollars for other projects -- including pork barrel spending. For years, RetireSafe has supported legislation that would provide a certificate of guarantee to Social Security beneficiaries.
Fair COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment). Seniors' annual cost-of-living-adjustments are calculated based on the spending habits of younger workers. The formula used doesn't account for increased spending on health insurance, long-term care or prescription drugs. For decades, the government has maintained an "experimental" index that tracks seniors' true cost of living. To see just how much more seniors could get over their retirement visit RetireSafe's Fair COLA Calculator at www.retiresafe.org/cola_calculator.html.
Repeal Double Tax. Seniors are subject to unfair taxation during their retirement years. After spending their whole lives paying taxes to the government -- the IRS still gets to tax 85% of their Social Security benefits if their retirement earnings reach a certain level.
Abolish the Early Retiree Earnings Limit. Early retirees who continue to work are penalized for doing so by earning limits. The limit taxes seniors at an outrageous amount -- more than many multi-millionaires. In today's economy more and more early retirees are returning to work to make ends meet -- and being penalized by the tax man for doing so.
Prohibit Totalization. The Social Security Administration has signed a totalization treaty with Mexico. The agreement would allow millions of illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits. This is a slap in the face to older Americans who worked hard their whole lives yet continue to struggle on their current benefit.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"With unfunded liabilities of up to $100 trillion and the Social Security Trust Fund scheduled to pay out more than it takes in by 2016, America's seniors deserve to know that the Social Security benefits they rely on to make ends meet will still be there for them," said RetireSafe President Michelle Plasari.
According to Plasari, there are simple ways to make Social Security more secure for current and near retirees:
Guaranteed Benefits. Currently, Social Security benefits are not a sure thing. They can be cut by Congress on a whim. Congress has continually used incoming Social Security dollars for other projects -- including pork barrel spending. For years, RetireSafe has supported legislation that would provide a certificate of guarantee to Social Security beneficiaries.
Fair COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment). Seniors' annual cost-of-living-adjustments are calculated based on the spending habits of younger workers. The formula used doesn't account for increased spending on health insurance, long-term care or prescription drugs. For decades, the government has maintained an "experimental" index that tracks seniors' true cost of living. To see just how much more seniors could get over their retirement visit RetireSafe's Fair COLA Calculator at www.retiresafe.org/cola_calculator.html.
Repeal Double Tax. Seniors are subject to unfair taxation during their retirement years. After spending their whole lives paying taxes to the government -- the IRS still gets to tax 85% of their Social Security benefits if their retirement earnings reach a certain level.
Abolish the Early Retiree Earnings Limit. Early retirees who continue to work are penalized for doing so by earning limits. The limit taxes seniors at an outrageous amount -- more than many multi-millionaires. In today's economy more and more early retirees are returning to work to make ends meet -- and being penalized by the tax man for doing so.
Prohibit Totalization. The Social Security Administration has signed a totalization treaty with Mexico. The agreement would allow millions of illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits. This is a slap in the face to older Americans who worked hard their whole lives yet continue to struggle on their current benefit.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)