Americans Are Retiring Later Than In The Past

The charts above are from the Gallup Poll, using information gathered recently and in the past. The recent survey was done between April 1st and 19th of a nationwide sample of 1,018 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Too Many Doubt They Will Be Able To Retire Comfortably

The charts above are from a recent YouGov Poll -- done between August 18th and 25th of a national sample of 15,570 adults. It shows that far too many Americans doubt they will ever be able to retire comfortably.

Near-Record Number Of Congressional Retirements This Year

(Cartoon image is by Jimmy Margulies at jimmymargulies.com.)

Political Pundits are predicting a "blue wave" in this year's congressional elections -- a wave that could flip one or both houses of Congress. The primary reason for that is the low job approval for Trump and the GOP-dominated Congress. But there is another factor that will help -- the near-record number of congressional retirements (most of them Republicans).

The following is part of an article on this from the Pew Research Center:

More members of the U.S. House of Representatives are choosing not to seek re-election to that body than at any time in the past quarter-century – including a record number of Republicans, according to an analysis by Pew Research Center. Those counts could rise further, since the filing deadlines in most states haven’t yet passed.

As of Feb. 28, 52 representatives (36 Republicans and 16 Democrats) have announced that they’re not running for new terms, according to our count. In addition, one Democrat (John Conyers of Michigan) resigned late last year, and his seat won’t be filled until Election Day in November – making a total of 53 voluntary departures, or 12% of the House’s full voting membership.

That’s the most since 1992, when 65 representatives (41 Democrats and 24 Republicans) chose not to pursue re-election; 51 retired outright, while 14 decided to run for some other office. Based on our analysis and a tally going back to 1930 compiled by Vital Statistics on Congress, 1992 is the record year for voluntary House departures.

The 36 Republicans who are leaving the House by choice after this year are the most for the GOP since 1930, according to our analysis and the Vital Statistics data. (This year’s tally doesn’t include three currently vacant seats that had been held by Republicans who have resigned, since those seats will be filled by special elections before November and the winners presumably will seek full terms as incumbents.) . . .

The spate of House members opting not to run for re-election this year has prompted much commentary speculating on what it might or might not mean for Democrats’ hopes of regaining control of the chamber. But large numbers of retirements don’t necessarily portend big changes in the House’s partisan makeup, based on a review of election results since 1992.

Over that timespan, there have been three elections that saw enough seats switch parties to shift control of the House. In 1994, a net 52 House seats swung from Democratic to Republican as the GOP took control for the first time in more than four decades. Democrats regained control in 2006, when they picked up 30 Republican seats, only to lose it again in 2010 when a net 63 seats turned from blue to red.

None of those elections were marked by particularly large numbers of voluntary departures. In 1994, 48 representatives retired or ran for another office – not many more than the 1992-2018 average of 41. Only 30 representatives passed on re-election bids in 2006 (less than 7% of the House), and 38 did so in 2010. On the other hand, while 1992 remains the record year for voluntary departures, the GOP gained just a net 10 seats from Democrats in that year’s elections.

And picking off seats opened up by retirements, resignations or seeking other offices has not been a major factor behind the most recent shifts in House control. In 2010, only 13 of the 66 Democratic seats that flipped to the GOP were open; just seven of the 30 Republican seats that Democrats captured in 2006 to retake the House were open. In 1994, Republicans won 21 open Democratic seats, but it was the 35 Democratic incumbents they beat that gave them the majority.

Seniors To Be Tossed Under The Bus - No COLA in 2016

(Chart made from figures provided at ssa.gov.)

It's already tough enough for retired Americans to live -- especially those who rely entirely on Social Security monthly payments. The average Social Security benefit is about $1300 a month (or about $15,600 a year) -- and half of the recipients get less than that.

Recipients are supposed to be given a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to their benefit payment each year. But the government has announced that their will be no COLA for 2016. This marks the third time in the last eight years that no COLA will be provided for retired seniors.

The COLA is supposed to be based on the rise in inflation. So, it's fair to have no COLA since inflation didn't rise overall -- right? NO. The only reason inflation didn't rise was because of the huge drop in oil prices (which drove gas prices down). The problem is that doesn't help seniors nearly as much as many other Americans.

Seniors no longer have to drive to work every day. And they no longer have to drive their kids to school, extracurricular practices, and many other places. Seniors do very little driving. But their other expenses are going up -- things they must continue to pay for (rent, food, clothing, medicine and medical care, etc). While gas prices went down, those other expenses are still going up.

This means the buying power of the small Social Security payment received by many seniors will continue to go down -- as prices for what they really need rise without a corresponding rise in the benefit they get. It's just not right!

And now we hear the congressional Republicans want to make it even worse. To avoid a government default or shutdown, they are going to demand a change in the way the COLA is figured. They want it to be figured in a way that will insure a lower COLA is given each year. That won't affect them (since most of them are rich anyway), but it could be disastrous for those living on a Social Security benefit. It means they will lose buying power even faster than they currently lose it.

This is ridiculous. Instead of cutting the COLA, we should be raising the monthly Social Security benefit -- especially for those making less than the average benefit. But that won't be done as long as the Republicans control Congress. That makes it important to vote them out of office next November.

GOP Candidates Launch A New Attack On Social Security

               The Republican candidates for president have joined in the fight against Social Security now. Of course they will tell you they are trying to "save" Social Security, but that is a lie. They know they can't do away with it in one fell swoop, so they have decided to kill it by whittling away at it until it is no longer viable, and no longer protects seniors from poverty.

The first salvo in this new attack on Social Security was fired by Chris Christie. He says the retirement age for Social Security should be raised to 70. And his fellow GOP "moderate", Jeb Bush, was quick to jump in and agree. I have no doubt that many other GOP hopefuls will soon join these two in wanting to raise the retirement age.

Now I understand why this might seem like a good idea to these two buffoons. Neither of them has ever had to do hard physical labor to feed their families, and neither have the Wall Street tycoons and corporate CEO's who contribute to their campaigns. I don't doubt it would be easy to delay retirement until the age of 70, if all you had to do is sit behind a desk and bark out orders to the people who do the real work.

But raising the retirement age to 70 is a ridiculous idea, and it would be disastrous for millions of American workers. That's because they support their families by doing back-breaking physical labor -- and their bodies will simply not hold out for another 5 years to get to retirement. Many of them are lucky to get to 65/66. And there are other occupations where, while they don't do a lot of physical labor, their job depends on being physically fit and mentally sharp -- jobs like being a policeman or a fireman. Do we really want people in professions like these to have to stay on the job until age 70? Wouldn't that not only put them in danger, but also the public they serve?

Raising the retirement age is a silly and mean-spirited idea -- and it has nothing to do with "saving" Social Security. Social Security could easily be fixed for many decades to come by simply removing the cap on the amount of income subject to FICA taxes (payroll taxes). That would not affect working and middle class citizens at all (since they already pay the maximum). It would only affect the rich, who pay a much smaller percentage of their income than everyone else does.

But the Republicans don't really want to fix Social Security -- they want to destroy it. They have never liked it. They don't like it, and want to destroy it, because truly fixing it would require their rich benefactors to pay their fair share in taxes -- and they never want the rich (or the corporations) to have to pay taxes.

Don't be fooled by this new "concern" for Social Security by the Republican hopefuls. It's just the same old anti-Social Security lie.

(The caricatures of Chris Christie and Jeb Bush above are by DonkeyHotey.)

Baby Boomers Are Starting To Retire & Collect Social Security

Immediately after the end of World War II, there was a huge increase in the number of babies being born in this country -- and that got that generation their nickname (Baby Boomers). The Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, a period of 19 years. Today, the oldest Baby Boomers are 68 years old and the youngest are 50 years old.

That means the Baby Boomers are now starting to reach retirement age -- with 61% of the 65 year olds, 66% of the 67 year olds, and 68% of the 68 year olds already out of the work force. Right-wing Republicans have been trying to scare Americans for several years now by talking about the size of the Baby Boomer generation (which admittedly is large), and claiming that this generation will "bankrupt" the Social Security system. Their hope is to create enough fear among younger Americans to let them damage Social Security by cutting benefits and raising the retirement age.

Don't believe them! They are lying -- and they are doing that to protect their real constituency, the rich, from having to pay as big a percentage of their income into FICA taxes as the working and middle classes currently pay. Currently, the rich pay a much smaller percentage than all other Americans pay, because the FICA tax is capped at a certain income (and that's just the way the Republicans like it).

Let me set a couple of things straight. The Baby Boomers have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund all of their working lives -- and they deserve to retire at the same age as previous retirees, and they deserve to be paid their full benefit. Anything less is a betrayal.

And the Baby Boomers are NOT going to bankrupt the Social Security system. The Social Security Trust Fund can continue to pay full benefits for about another 20 years, and after that, it can pay 80% of those benefits far into the future. It is in no danger of going bankrupt.

And the system can be easily fixed to allow the system to pay full benefits far into the future, without raising the retirement age or cutting retirement benefits. All Congress has to do is raise (or eliminate) the cap on the income subject to the FICA tax (commonly called the payroll tax). This would affect only the richest Americans -- and would not cost the working and middle classes a penny more in taxes.

The Republicans have never liked Social Security. They opposed it when it was created, and they have tried to abolish it since then. They know it is too popular right now to do away with it, so they are trying to chip away at it -- cutting benefits and raising the retirement age and damaging it a little bit at a time (until it is so bad that they can abolish it). Don't let them do it! Don't let them scare you into allowing them to destroy the federal system that has worked better than any other (and cut senior poverty from above 50% to below 10%).

NOTE -- The charts above were made from a new Gallup Poll done throughout 2014 of a random national sample of 134,168 adults, with only a 1 point margin of error.

The GOP Would Deny Income To Retirees By Raising The Age To Qualify For Social Security Benefits

These charts were made from information provided by the Gallup Poll between 2002 and 2014. The latest survey being done between April 3rd and 6th of 1,026 randomly chosen nationwide adults (and has a margin of error of 4 points). Previous years would be similar.

I found it interesting that the difference between expected retirement and actual retirement was significantly different. As a young or even middle aged person, we all expect to have a long work life & don't particularly expect or want to retire early. But life intervenes, and changes those expectations to realities.

Why do people retire earlier than they expect to? A few just meet their goals, and retire to enjoy the money they have made -- but they are a tiny minority. Others are forced into retirement because their employer just wants to replace them with a younger and cheaper employee. But the majority of early retirees must do so because of either illness or their bodies are just not capable of performing physical labor any more.

The Republicans in Congress have said for years now that the retirement age for receiving Social Security benefits should be raised to age 70. And a roundtable of corporate executives recently agreed with them. But they are not considering what happens to workers in the real world. Workers who spend their lives without doing any physical labor (politicians, bankers, corporate executives, hedge fund managers, Wall Street brokers, etc.) could probably work until age 70, because they have not had to put daily physical demands on their bodies.

But there are millions of Americans workers (miners, oil field workers, construction workers, farm workers, etc.) who must do hard physical labor every day of their working lives, and it is just not right to expect them to continue doing that kind of work until age 70. While most would love to continue working, their bodies will just not let them do that. Whether we want to admit it or not, a 55 or 60 year old just cannot do the same physical labor they could do at 25 or 30 years old. People who spend their lives doing hard physical labor will have to retire earlier than a person who has not.

And that is the main thing that's wrong with the GOP's desire to raise the retirement age. It would force many physical laborers who have to retire to go years without any income before they could apply for Social Security -- making them have to rely on family members for support, or forcing them into a homeless and penniless situation. And that's a terrible thing to happen to a person that worked hard for their entire lives (until their bodies could no longer do it).

It is just these type of people who the Social Security program was created for -- hard workers who, through no fault of their own, can no longer work. Raising the retirement age would throw these people into poverty (which Social Security was designed to prevent) -- and it's a heartless solution designed to keep the rich from having to pay the same percentage in FICA taxes that these workers pay all of their working lives.

There is no legitimate reason to raise the retirement age, or to cut any Social Security benefits. Any problems the Social Security system has (which will not show up for another 20 years) can easily be fixed by raising or eliminating the cap on income subject to FICA taxes. And personally, I don't see why the rich shouldn't be paying the same FICA tax percentage as middle class and poor workers have to pay.

Entitlement - A Dirty Word ?

A few days ago, I posted the graphic above about Social Security. My purpose, of course, was to defend Social Security as an excellent government program that has worked exactly as it was supposed to (keeping millions of elderly Americans from slipping into poverty after their retirement).

But one of my readers called me out on part of what the graphic says -- that Social Security is not an entitlement. The reader said there is nothing wrong with the word "entitlement", and we should stop allowing the right-wing to demonize and redefine words -- making them sound dirty. After giving the matter some thought, I have to say that he is right. There is nothing wrong with feeling entitled to a check from Social Security after paying into the program for most of a person's life.

Here is how that reader, Jayhawk, puts it on his own blog called On My Mind (which I highly recommend):

Liberals (or “progressives”) have espoused a variation of this image, one which goes on to talk about privatization, which is a different subject altogether. At any rate, they are vigorously denying that the Social Security program is an“entitlement.”

One definition of “entitlement” is “a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group,” but there is nothing inherently “dirty” about that, really. In any case, that is a secondary definition, established by common usage fairly recently in historical context and the primary definition is “a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.” Which is why Social Security absolutelyis an entitlement.

Beneficiaries of the Social Security entered into a contract that for all of their working lives they would pay money into a trust fund and that once they were no longer working they would receive that money back in the form of a retirement stipend. Having upheld their end of the contract, workers are entitled by contract to receive those benefits, and the government is bound by contract to honor their side of the deal and pay the stipend to which the contractees are entitled.

The second statement on that image, about the “problem” of government borrowing from the fund, is a canard. In fact, the trust fund has invested its surplus in the safest place possible anywhere in the world; in US Treasuries. That is not a problem by anyone’s definition of problem, since the investment with the absolute lowest risk of loss world wide is US government debt. No one has ever lost one cent by investing in US Treasuries, so how is that a “problem,”pray tell?

I never can understand why liberals allow the other side not only to define the argument for them, but even to distort the meanings of individual words, and not push back.

Liberals should be standing up and asserting that “entitlement” is not a dirty word; that an entitlement represents an obligation on the part of the US government no less binding than monetary debt. We should be shouting that in making the claims that they do about entitlements, conservatives are demanding the this nation default on its debt as surely as if it were to refuse to pay on bonds due for redemption; that they are demanding that the government refuse to honor contracts made in good faith.

Instead, we accept the premise of the big lie made by conservatives and hunker down in a defensive crouch, whimpering that “Social Security is not an entitlement.”

I don't disagree at all with this. I have paid into the Social Security program since the mid-sixties. I did so because of an agreement with the federal government -- that if I would pay a percentage of my income throughout my working life, then they would provide me with a check during my retirement years. I kept my part of the bargain, and I have the right to expect the government to keep their part of the bargain. I am "entitled" to that.

As Jayhawk says, "entitlement" is not a dirty word. It is just the expectation that a contract will be honored.

Recession Driving Older Workers To Social Security

The current recession, which is still going regardless of what any of the so-called pundits might say, has been devastating for many working and middle class Americans. Over 12 million people lost their jobs and only a very tiny fraction of those jobs have been replaced by new job creations.

But the recession has been especially hard on older Americans. The closer one gets to retirement age (now at 66 years old), the harder it is to find a new job when a job is lost. Most employers prefer to hire a younger worker -- someone who has never worked for a lot of money and may stay on the job for many years -- especially on low-paying jobs (which is about all there is now). Since the recession began in December 2007, the number of unemployed people over 55 years old has increased by 115% (and over 53% have been out of work for over 6 months or more).

This has had the effect of driving many older Americans to social security a few years earlier than they wanted, and caused them to have to accept a significant cut in their benefits for the remainder of their lives. But when a person has bills and must have an income (and there are no available jobs), a cut in social security income is better than no income at all.

These numbers from the Social Security Administration show the explosive growth in the number of early retirees due to the recession (percentage shown is early retirees):

1970...............47%

1980...............57%

2007...............74%

2008...............74%

2009...............72%

This story has a personal meaning for me. I am one of the 72% who took an early social security retirement in 2009 and lost about 25% of my retirement benefit. I did not want to do that and had planned on working for a few more years, but the Bush recession didn't give me much choice. Fortunately, I also had a state annuity to make up the difference (but even that would have been larger if I could have continued working a few more years).

I'm just thankful I was old enough to get my retirement benefits. If I'd been a few years younger, I would be one of those haunting the unemployment office looking for jobs that don't exist and becoming angry at Republicans who think those out of work are just lazy and don't deserve unemployment benefits.

Through de-regulation and trickle-down economics, the Republicans have seriously hurt millions of people in this country. I hope they still remember this when they go to the polls in November. I know I will.

Attorney General Kills Retirement Bonuses

During the last session of the Texas legislature, the legislators set aside $155 million to give retired teachers and state employees a one-time $500 bonus. The bonus would have come this month to members of the Employees Retirement System and the Teacher Retirement System.

For those who don't know, teachers and state employees in Texas work very hard for less pay than their counterparts in most other states get. And the money they get after retiring is even less. A payment of $500 may not seem like much to many people, but to most Texas retirees it was a much-appreciated gift -- especially right before the holidays.

But that money won't be distributed to Texas retirees now. That's because, according to the boneheaded Attorney General of Texas (Greg Abbott), it would somehow be illegal to pay the one-time bonuses. Once again, Texas Republicans show they don't care about the elderly -- even those who have dedicated their lives to serving the state of Texas and its children.

Now some may think that the AG (pictured) has saved the state from spending this $155 million, but that is not true. Instead of going to the retirees, the money will be paid into the trust funds of the two retirement systems. Instead of the retirees benefitting, now some banks and financial analysts will benefit instead. True to form, our Republican leadership has acted to benefit corporate and financial interests over the interests of ordinary Texans.

Even worse, this $155 million that will now sit in a bank or be invested in some corporate stock, could have been circulating in the Texas economy to the benefit of all Texans. The retirees, who I remind you are paid very little, would have spent this money on rent, car payments and expenses, food, gifts for relatives and many other things.

It would have been a boost for the Texas economy, which is feeling the recession regardless of what our idiot governor and other state Republican leaders think. Now it will only benefit a few of the rich and powerful.

I hope the retirees and the citizens of Texas remember this in the 2010 elections. The Republicans have failed in their state leadership and its time for them to go.

Republicans Let Corporations Screw Retirees

Time after time, we have seen the Republican leadership in Washington (and here in Texas) favor corporations over people. To the Republicans, corporate profits are always more important than an individual's rights or well-being.

So it really shouldn't surprise anyone that they've done it again. This time it's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (surely mis-named since the Republicans were put in charge of it).

On Wednesday, the EEOC ruled that employers can eliminate all health benefits for any retiree that reaches the age of 65. They said that once a retiree qualifies for Medicare, the employer has no more responsibility for any kind of health care benefits. Retirees that are under 65 would still qualify for full health benefits.

The EEOC said the rule was not meant to encourage employers to stop providing any benefits they currently provide. But anyone who believes that a corporation will provide anything they are not required to provide for a retiree is out-of-touch with the business world (and the real world).

The AARP believes the corporations will deny the benefits. They say this ruling will affect over 10 million retirees.

The ruling leaves these retirees with nothing but Medicare. The same Medicare that Republicans have tried to destroy since coming to power. The same Medicare that Republicans have gutted so badly that many doctors no longer accept it.

Why do Republicans hate the elderly? First they try to destroy Medicare, and then they make sure that retirees will not be provided supplemental coverage by their former employers.

By requiring coverage for retirees and then allowing that coverage to be completely eliminated when the person turns 65, the EEOC is allowing legalized age discrimination.

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. First, they deny health benefits to children, and then they cut the benefits for the elderly. What is next -- snatching bottles out of the mouths of babies?