There has been surprisingly little discussion about the future of Social Security in the ongoing presidential election campaign, leaving questions about what the candidates will actually do if elected.
Democrat Hillary Clinton’s position seems to depend upon her audience:
“I won’t cut Social Security. … I’ll defend it, and I’ll expand it.” www.hillaryclinton.com, February 5, 2016.
“In lucrative paid speeches that Hillary Clinton delivered to elite financial firms but refused to disclose to the public, she displayed an easy comfort with titans of business, embraced unfettered international trade and praised a budget-balancing plan that would have required cuts to Social Security, according to documents posted online Friday by WikiLeaks.” The New York TImes, Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at East with Wall Street, Oct. 7, 2016.
Republican Donald Trump’s position is vague. He seems to promise not to cut Social Security for existing recipients but certainly does not commit himself to expansion of the program.
“I’m going to save Social Security. You have tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. We have in Social Security thousands of people over 106 years old. You know they don’t exist. There’s tremendous waste, fraud and abuse, and we’re going to get it. But we’re not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to get less. We’re bringing jobs back.” Source: 2016 CBS Republican primary debate in South Carolina, Feb 13, 2016
The fate of Social Security is vital to 40 million retired Americans, including 21% of married couples and about 43% of unmarried persons who rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.
Of course, what politicians promise during the election season is not always what they deliver. President Barack Obama promised the following and then did the reverse:
“Obama will fight job discrimination for aging employees by strengthening the Age Discrimination in Employment Act … .” Source: Blueprint for Change (2008).
Two years later, President Obama signed an executive order that carves out an exception to the ADEA that permits the nation’s largest employer, the federal government, to discriminate on the basis of age in hiring for federal jobs. This was done in plain sight but there was no protest – nor indeed any comment – from the AARP, which is busy mining its treasure trove of older members through the sales of Medigap health insurance and licensing agreements. And Obama’s administration has ignored the epidemic of age discrimination in hiring that has forced millions of older workers out of the workplace and into an uncertain and ill-advised retirement.
In his address to the Detroit Economic Club on Monday, GOP Presidential hopeful Donald Trump said something that could have tremendous impact on the problem of age discrimination in employment.
He promised to immediately cancel all of President Barack Obama’s “illegal and overreaching executive orders.”
Older workers have been subject to blatant age discrimination in hiring by our nation’s largest employer, the U.S. government, since President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2010 that essentially created an exemption to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) for federal agencies.
President Obama’s order allows federal agencies to bypass older workers and hire “recent graduates.” The ADEA unambiguously states that it is unlawful for any employer “to fail or refuse to hire” any individual “because of such individual’s age.” Obama’s order has a disparate impact upon older workers because the vast majority of recent graduates are under age 30.
Paradoxically, President Obama claimed that merit-based civil service rules put the federal government at a “competitive disadvantage compared to private-sector employers when it comes to hiring qualified applicants for entry-level positions.” The point of civil service regulations is, of course, to hire the best qualified applicant. Obama’s order enables federal agencies to hire young applicants with fewer qualifications than older applicants. Continue reading “Would Trump Halt Age Discrimination by Feds?”
Immediately upon losing the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called on progressives to unite behind Hillary Clinton in November to preserve the Supreme Court’s majority in favor of “a woman’s right to choose” and LGBT causes.
Meanwhile, GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has expressed confidence that Supreme Court fears will keep Republicans loyal in the ballot box. Trump has vowed to nominate conservative candidates to the Court.
The fact that U.S. Supreme Court justices enjoy the perk of lifetime tenure is driving the American election to a sobering extent this year, pointing to the need to implement term limits for U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
The majority of the nine-member Court is eligible for Social Security: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83, Anthony M. Kennedy, 80 Stephen G. Breyer, 77, Clarence Thomas, 68, Samuel A. Alito Jr., 66, and Sonya Sotomayor, 62. The youngest Justice is Elena Kagan, 56.
It is likely that several Justices will be forced to step down by ill health or even death in the foreseeable future. The next President will nominate candidates to fill the vacancies.
It cannot be healthy for the election of a new U.S. President to be so profoundly influenced by fear surrounding the potential makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The candidates for the Presidency are stoking fear that the Court will divide along political lines and impose a distinct and unwanted ideology on the American public. But that ploy works precisely because the Court has voted along ideological lines for years.Continue reading “Term Limits for the Supreme Court”
.According to the Social Security Administration, a much higher percentage of women who are aged 65 and older live in poverty or near poverty than do males who are aged 65 and older. The median income of individual males aged 65 and older was $29,327 in 2013 compared to $16,301 for individual females. Median means half earned more and half earned less
When candidates for the U.S. Presidency talk about cutting Social Security benefits, a lot of women worry. That’s because women suffer from the cumulative negative impact of sex and age discrimination.
.According to the Social Security Administration, a much higher percentage of women who are aged 65 and older live in poverty or near poverty than do men who are aged 65 and older. The median income of individual males aged 65 and older was $29,327 in 2013 compared to $16,301 for individual females. Median means that half had a higher income and half had a lower income.
Women suffer discrimination all of their working lives, starting with a pay disparity in their first jobs that persists throughout their careers. Women suffer from pregnancy discrimination and the failure of the American workplace to accommodate the disproportionate burdens place upon women with children. Finally, women suffer age discrimination at least a decade before many men experience the problem.
In a 2013 study, the National Women’s Law Center found that nearly 2.9 million women aged 65 and older live in poverty compared to 1.3 million men. The poverty rate for older women was 12 percent, compared to 7 percent for older men. That’s almost twice as many women living in poverty than men! Poverty rates were particularly high for older women who are black (20 percent), Hispanic (23 percent) and Native American (21 percent).