thanks kendal, this is pretty thorugh. i understand
that the democrates in the senate are getting close to
being ready to present a plan.

--- Kendall David Corbett <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Trisha and Ken,
>
> This is a fact sheet on changes in Social Security
> and the impact those
> changes will potentially have on people with
> disabilities.  I got the
> fact sheet, and others on other issues at a
> conference I attended the
> first of the month in DC sponsored by UCP, AUCD,
> AAMR, The Arc, and
> another organization I'm blanking on now.
>
> I'll paste the body of the fact sheet below as I'm
> not sure what various
> people's servers will do to an attachment.
>
> SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
> Background
>         People with severe disabilities are eligible
> for cash benefits
> under the Social Security Act: Title II includes the
> Old Age, Survivors,
> and Disability Insurance programs and Title XVI
> includes the
> Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.
> Generally, Title II
> disability beneficiaries are eligible for the Title
> XVIII Medicare
> program; SSI beneficiaries are eligible for the
> Title XIX Medicaid
> program.  Over 6 million people with disabilities
> receive Title II
> benefits.  Over 5.4 million people with disabilities
> receive SSI
> benefits.  Many people rely almost entirely on their
> cash benefits for
> their daily needs and rely upon the medical benefits
> also available to
> them.
> Solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds
> The disability community has consistently raised
> concerns about Social
> Security reform proposals to address the long term
> solvency of the
> Social Security Trust Funds.  Numerous bills have
> been introduced in
> several Congresses.  In January 2001, the General
> Accounting Office
> issued a report that addressed some of the
> disability community's
> concerns about the negative impacts many of the
> reform proposals would
> have on people with disabilities.  In addition, in
> December 2001, the
> President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security
> issued its final
> report which only briefly addressed issues regarding
> the Social Security
> Disability Insurance (DI) program and the SSI
> program.  Throughout, the
> disability community has sought to educate Members
> of Congress and other
> policymakers about the importance of the Title II
> Old Age, Survivors,
> and Disability Insurance (OASDI) programs to people
> with disabilities
> and the potential impact of reform proposals on
> Title II beneficiaries
> with disabilities.
> More than one-third of all Social Security benefit
> payments are made to
> over 17 million people who are non-retirees,
> including over 5 million
> disabled workers, nearly 1.5 million children of
> disabled workers, and
> over 750,000 disabled adult children covered by the
> survivors,
> retirement, and disability programs.  Other
> non-retirees include
> non-disabled survivors and dependents.  People with
> disabilities draw
> benefits from all parts of the Title II trust funds:
>
> *       Disabled workers and their dependents,
> including their disabled
> adult children, draw benefits from the DI program;
> *       Retirees with disabilities draw retirement
> benefits;
> *       Disabled dependents of retirees, including
> disabled adult
> children, draw their benefits from the retirement
> program; and
> *       Disabled survivors, including disabled adult
> children and
> widow(er)s, draw their benefits from the survivors
> program.
>         The Title II programs, as insurance against
> poverty, are
> essential to the protection of people with
> disabilities. The programs
> are unique in providing benefits to multiple
> beneficiaries and across
> multiple generations under coverage earned by a
> single wage earner's
> contributions.  Workers earn coverage for themselves
> and their family
> members through payment of Social Security taxes
> during their work
> years.  The insurance protection they receive is
> targeted to prevent
> poverty in old age, in case of disability, or where
> there are dependent
> survivors after the death of the worker or retiree.
>  Proposals that
> would partially or fully eliminate the current
> broad-based sharing of
> risk (social insurance) and replace it with the
> risks of private
> investment would be harmful to people with
> disabilities.  Privatization
> of the Social Security trust funds would shift the
> risks from the
> federal government back to the individual, resulting
> in a devastating
> impact on people with disabilities and their
> families.  The basic safety
> nets of retirement, survivors, and disability
> insurance must be
> maintained.
> In June 2004, the Congressional Budget Office
> released a report on the
> financial state of the Social Security Trust Funds,
> finding that the
> program will remain solvent longer than previously
> estimated.  According
> to the report, the long-range deficit in Social
> Security is only about
> half as large as projected by the Social Security
> Trustees earlier in
> the year.  In addition, the Social Security Trust
> Funds will be able to
> pay full benefits for almost 50 years, until 2052, a
> decade longer than
> previously projected.
> Action Taken by Congress and the Administration
> In his 2005 State of the Union address, President
> Bush argued that the
> Social Security system is in crisis and revealed
> some of the details of
> his proposal for privatizing a portion of the Social
> Security trust
> funds by creating private accounts for individuals.
> He indicated that,
> under his plan, workers would be allowed to put 4
> percent of their wages
> into private retirement accounts rather than into
> the Social Security
> trust funds.  He did not indicate how the losses
> from the trust funds
> would be paid for and he made no mention of what
> would happen to the
> benefits of the more than 1/3 of beneficiaries who
> are not retirees,
> including people with disabilities.  Earlier that
> day, a senior
> Administration official had indicated that the
> losses of trust fund
> dollars from the diversion of funds into private
> accounts would result
> in benefit cuts for those workers.  In addition, the
> official admitted
> that the private accounts would do nothing to
> restore solvency to the
> trust funds over the 75-year period.  Further, Vice
> President Cheney
> acknowledged that the proposals would cost trillions
> of dollars over
> several decades, in transition and other costs.
> Subsequently, the White House has indicated that the
> private accounts
> would be voluntary and would start gradually.  The
> accounts would be
> invested in a mix of conservative bond and stock
> funds and a "life-cycle
> portfolio" would be available to shift investment
> allocations to
> lower-risk investments when individuals near
> retirement age.  There
> would be fees for record keeping, which would be
> done by the government.
> Private accounts would not be available until
> retirement and individuals
> could not borrow against the funds in the account.
> Funds in the
> accounts could not be withdrawn all at once at
> retirement, but would
> have to be paid out over time.  Individuals who do
> not choose personal
> accounts would receive traditional Social Security
> retirement benefits,
> adjusted to reflect changes to make the system
> solvent.
=== message truncated ===




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/