Latest news with #NancyAltman
New York Times
6 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Social Security Is Turning 90. Here Are 6 Myths About It That Won't Go Away.
The concept of retirement as we know it was born 90 years ago this month. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Social Security into law on Aug. 14, 1935, ushering in the idea of a time of independence from work. At that time, Americans had no meaningful way to plan for an income after work ended — large-scale pensions and retirement savings programs did not exist. When most people stopped working, they either relied on their families or became impoverished. Some wound up in poorhouses — government-run facilities that provided support, such as shelter and food, often in exchange for work. 'Almost every state had them, and they mainly housed old people,' said Nancy Altman, a Social Security advocate who has written several books about the history of the program. It was the depths of the Great Depression, and roughly half of America's elderly population lived in poverty. In the decades since, Social Security has played a key role in improving the economic security of seniors — it prevented an additional 16.3 million adults age 65 and older from living below the poverty line in 2023, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Without Social Security, that would have meant a poverty rate of 37.3 percent, compared with the rate of 10 percent that year. Roosevelt also was inaugurating a new era of social insurance in the United States — the concept of national programs sponsored by government that pool contributions by employers and workers to protect Americans. Today, social insurance programs include not only Social Security, but Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Decision On Birthright Citizenship Could Cause Social Security Number 'Chaos'
WASHINGTON – The federal government could have to change how it issues Social Security numbers now that the Supreme Court has said President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship can take effect outside of specific cases where it's been blocked by a lower court. For decades, whenever a baby is born in the U.S., hospitals have notified state vital records agencies, which have in turn notified the Social Security Administration, that a new person needs a Social Security number. The so-called 'enumeration at birth' policy is automatic for the government and simple for parents, who merely check a box on a hospital form. Trump's order, if it takes effect in 30 days, could make the process more complicated, though neither the Social Security Administration nor the White House responded to requests for comment Friday about how it could change. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, a liberal advocacy group that opposes benefit cuts, said the Supreme Court decision, allowing at least partial implementation of Trump's birthright directive, could create 'widespread chaos' and require more Americans to visit Social Security field offices in order to get Social Security numbers for their babies. The order forbids federal agencies to accept or issue documents recognizing citizenship to babies whose mothers are not lawfully present in the United States. The text describes exactly the sort of sending and receiving of documents that occurs through the enumeration at birth process. 'It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person's mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth, or (2) when that person's mother's presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person's father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person's birth.' The order specifically mentions Social Security and gives agencies 30 days to issue public guidance about how it would be implemented. The Supreme Court's decision did not address the constitutionality of the order, which is plainly contrary to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, but rather the practice of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, like the ones several federal judges imposed blocking the birthright order from taking effect. The court said the injunctions can remain, but only to the extent they 'provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' It's likely there will be lots more plaintiffs, class action cases and additional injunctions that could cover wide geographic areas. To the extent the order takes effect, in Altman's telling, the Social Security Administration will have to track court cases and devise some way of determining which babies are eligible for enumeration and which aren't, and that doing so could be extremely difficult. 'It might mean that SSA simply ends its enumeration at birth program, costing huge amounts of money, causing huge inconvenience, and swamping already overwhelmed field offices,' Altman said. Canceling or curtailing Social Security's enumeration at birth program would likely cause a public backlash, one that the Trump administration might like to avoid, since it's the way 99% of babies have received their Social Security numbers since the 1990s. In March, the Social Security Administration canceled vital records contracts with the state of Maine in an act of political retaliation against Maine's Democratic governor. The state notified parents they would have to visit Social Security field offices to get their kids' Social Security numbers, prompting an outcry that forced Social Security to quickly reinstate the contracts. Supreme Court Rules With Trump On Birthright Citizenship — And Chaos May Be Coming Trump Administration Forces Maine Parents To Visit Social Security Offices To Register Newborns (UPDATE) Trump's Victory In Birthright Citizenship Puts Him 1 Step Closer To Being A King
Boston Globe
18-06-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Medicare and Social Security go-broke dates pushed up due to rising health care costs, new SSA law
Advertisement The trustees say the latest findings show the urgency of needed changes to the programs, which have faced dire financial projections for decades. But making changes to the programs has long been politically unpopular, and lawmakers have repeatedly kicked Social Security and Medicare's troubling math to the next generation. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up President Donald Trump and other Republicans have vowed not to make any cuts to Medicare or Social Security, even as they seek to shrink the federal government's expenditures. 'Current-law projections indicate that Medicare still faces a substantial financial shortfall that needs to be addressed with further legislation. Such legislation should be enacted sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on beneficiaries, providers, and taxpayers,' the trustees state in the report. About 68 million people are enrolled in Medicare, the federal government's health insurance that covers those 65 and older, as well as people with severe disabilities or illnesses. Advertisement Wednesday's report shows a worsening situation for the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund compared to last year. But the forecasted go-broke date of 2033 is still later than the dates of 2031, 2028 and 2026 predicted just a few years ago. Once the fund's reserves become depleted, Medicare would be able to cover only 89% of costs for patients' hospital visits, hospice care and nursing home stays or home health care that follow hospital visits. The report said expenses last year for Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund came in higher than expected. Income exceeded expenditures by nearly $29 billion last year for the hospital insurance trust fund, the report stated. Trustees expect that surplus to continue through 2027. Deficits then will follow until the fund becomes depleted in 2033. The report states that the Social Security Social Security Fairness Act, enacted in January, which repealed the Windfall Elimination and Government Pension Offset provisions of the Social Security Act and increased Social Security benefit levels for some workers, had an impact on the depletion date of SSA's trust funds. Social Security benefits were last reformed roughly 40 years ago, when the federal government raised the eligibility age for the program from 65 to 67. The eligibility age has never changed for Medicare, with people eligible for the medical coverage when they turn 65. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, an advocacy group for the popular public benefit program said in a statement that 'there are two options for action: Bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn't support increasing Social Security's revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts.' Advertisement Congressional Budget Office reporting has stated that the biggest drivers of debt rising in relation to GDP are increasing interest costs and spending for Medicare and Social Security. An aging population drives those numbers. Several legislative proposals have been put forward to address Social Security's impending insolvency. Associated Press reporters Amanda Seitz and Tom Murphy in Indianapolis contributed to this report.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Has Trump declared you dead? You won't enjoy it if he does.
Last Thursday, The Trump administration placed 6,300 immigrants on Social Security's 'Death Master File.' According to Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, being listed there means 'losing your income, your health insurance, access to your bank account, your credit cards, your home, and more.' And that is precisely the administration's goal: to find people it doesn't like and compel them to leave. It claimed, without proof, that the people they declared dead are criminals or suspected terrorists. The claim is questionable, since the list includes eight children. So far, the only apparent commonality among the targets is that they were granted legal status during the previous administration. That's right — they are here legally. They followed the process to obtain Social Security numbers and were permitted to remain in the U.S. and work. The new administration, however, has reneged on that commitment and wants them to self-deport. For the Trump team, commitments made by our institutions can be invalidated based on the subjective judgment of a single individual. Process doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. The only requirement for being declared dead is your esteem in the minds of those who control the data. If that's the deciding factor, why wouldn't any of the rest of us be next? The consequences of being on the Death Master List are dire. This affects a lot more than eligibility for Social Security benefits. Presence on the list sets in motion credit card cancellations and home loan foreclosures. It ends access to insured medical care. It means that you cannot work or apply for an apartment or open a bank account. For example, one elderly woman who was inadvertently placed on the list in December 2023 died after months of trying to correct the error. For months, she went without the income she relied on. Her home was listed for sale and her medical insurance was cancelled, leaving her unable to afford life-saving medication. At 88, she died from the stress and consequences of being already categorized as dead. (Her family has sued the Social Security Administration earlier this month.) If you are placed on this list — deliberately or mistakenly — you no longer exist, according to the institutional engines of our country. You may be alive, but your life will be plagued with irreversible consequences. Who among us will be next to be economically exiled? Are you a doctor who performs abortions? A journalist who publishes unflattering articles? An attorney who has represented an adversary? Members of these classes have already been subject to harassing lawsuits by Trump or his associates. Are you gay? Muslim? A Tesla protester? All of these classes have been targets of the administration's verbal wrath. Beyond lawsuits and threats, the administration has already punished foreign nationals residing in the U.S. by rescinding visas and deporting them without due process. And on April 14, in an Oval Office meeting with the president of El Salvador, who is being paid to imprison deportees, Trump announced that he is willing to apply his deportation tactics to American citizens as well. 'We also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways … that are absolute monsters,' Trump said. 'I'd like to include them … to get them out of the country,' he continued. But we know violent behavior is not the real criterion. Trump's ease in pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, some of whom violently assaulted police officers, proves that it's his personal assessment that is the driving factor in who is punished and who is not. This newest deportation weapon is an efficient means of delivering that punishment. It's swift, deadly and requires little effort. A simple digital switch can eviscerate an entire existence. Further, there has been little resistance to any of the administration's tactics, so implementation has been frictionless. The Republican-led Congress has not voiced objection or attempted to protect residents through legislation. And the Supreme Court recently issued what sounds more like a suggestion than a ruling to return a wrongfully deported resident. Add to that the administration's overt defiance of lower court rulings, without consequence, and its path to deporting anyone it deems worthy seems unobstructed. Criminal or not, citizen or not, we are all at risk. Kirti Schoener is a former tech executive and current concerned citizen. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
17-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Has Trump declared you dead? You won't enjoy it if he does.
Last Thursday, The Trump administration placed 6,300 immigrants on Social Security's 'Death Master File.' According to Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, being listed there means 'losing your income, your health insurance, access to your bank account, your credit cards, your home, and more.' And that is precisely the administration's goal: to find people it doesn't like and compel them to leave. It claimed, without proof, that the people they declared dead are criminals or suspected terrorists. The claim is questionable, since the list includes eight children. So far, the only apparent commonality among the targets is that they were granted legal status during the previous administration. That's right — they are here legally. They followed the process to obtain Social Security numbers and were permitted to remain in the U.S. and work. The new administration, however, has reneged on that commitment and wants them to self-deport. For the Trump team, commitments made by our institutions can be invalidated based on the subjective judgment of a single individual. Process doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. The only requirement for being declared dead is your esteem in the minds of those who control the data. If that's the deciding factor, why wouldn't any of the rest of us be next? The consequences of being on the Death Master List are dire. This affects a lot more than eligibility for Social Security benefits. Presence on the list sets in motion credit card cancellations and home loan foreclosures. It ends access to insured medical care. It means that you cannot work or apply for an apartment or open a bank account. For example, one elderly woman who was inadvertently placed on the list in December 2023 died after months of trying to correct the error. For months, she went without the income she relied on. Her home was listed for sale and her medical insurance was cancelled, leaving her unable to afford life-saving medication. At 88, she died from the stress and consequences of being already categorized as dead. (Her family has sued the Social Security Administration earlier this month.) If you are placed on this list — deliberately or mistakenly — you no longer exist, according to the institutional engines of our country. You may be alive, but your life will be plagued with irreversible consequences. Who among us will be next to be economically exiled? Are you a doctor who performs abortions? A journalist who publishes unflattering articles? An attorney who has represented an adversary? Members of these classes have already been subject to harassing lawsuits by Trump or his associates. Are you gay? Muslim? A Tesla protester? All of these classes have been targets of the administration's verbal wrath. Beyond lawsuits and threats, the administration has already punished foreign nationals residing in the U.S. by rescinding visas and deporting them without due process. And on April 14, in an Oval Office meeting with the president of El Salvador, who is being paid to imprison deportees, Trump announced that he is willing to apply his deportation tactics to American citizens as well. 'We also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways … that are absolute monsters,' Trump said. 'I'd like to include them … to get them out of the country,' he continued. But we know violent behavior is not the real criterion. Trump's ease in pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, some of whom violently assaulted police officers, proves that it's his personal assessment that is the driving factor in who is punished and who is not. This newest deportation weapon is an efficient means of delivering that punishment. It's swift, deadly and requires little effort. A simple digital switch can eviscerate an entire existence. Further, there has been little resistance to any of the administration's tactics, so implementation has been frictionless. The Republican-led Congress has not voiced objection or attempted to protect residents through legislation. And the Supreme Court recently issued what sounds more like a suggestion than a ruling to return a wrongfully deported resident. Add to that the administration's overt defiance of lower court rulings, without consequence, and its path to deporting anyone it deems worthy seems unobstructed. Criminal or not, citizen or not, we are all at risk.
