In millions of conversations AARP held in 2012, Americans said they want Social Security and Medicare to be there for their children and grandchildren.  And for millions of children, Social Security is the only thing that stands between them and poverty because they’ve lost a parent at too young an age or because they are taken care of by their grandparents.  According to the Social Security Administration, about 4.4 million children receive Social Security benefits because one or both of their parents are disabled, retired or deceased.

But columnists and hedge fund managers in elite publications continue to consider the case for generational warfare, a false story most beloved by those who want to pay less in taxes.  Americans of all ages reject the concept that generations are at war with each other over shrinking resources. Older Americans want to age with economic stability, and want the same for their children and grandchildren.

The small group of individuals who would like us to believe that Social Security ought to face cuts for the sake of our children may continue to push this message but they’ll also continue to bump up against the truth.  According to Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik in a column he wrote about the sham of “generational theft,” when you “Put the numbers together and you discover that spending by governments at all levels in 2008 came to about $1 trillion on seniors and $936 billion on children. In other words, very close to 1 to 1.”

Just as Social Security remains crucial for older Americans, it also remains as an important piece of economic security for American families.  AARP’s CEO Barry Rand may say it best in his latest column on this issue when he says “We need to focus on helping people of all ages attain long-term health and financial security and live their best lives, not argue over who is hurt or helped more.”

As Rand also points out in his column, nearly 6 million children live with grandparents and 7 million children live in households that depend on Social Security to support the family.  Grandparents, parents, and children who have a meal together might argue about things at the dinner table but they also depend on each other.  Those who would have us believe the eldest have taken from the youngest have misjudged the character and the truth of the strong relationships we share between generations.

The argument that generations are at war for resources continues to surprise those who have love and respect for all generations. But such a silly argument loses traction each time it bumps up against the truth and whenever we hug a loved one from a different generation.

Also of Interest

• Boomer Suicides Soar: Is the Economy to Blame?
• Seeing Spots? It May Be a ‘Floater’
• Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being

See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more

Click here to view the embedded video.

One of the key messages coming from the White House when the President’s usual allies began openly criticizing his budget, was a time-trusted blame game statement that insisted “It was Speaker Boehner’s idea.”  While that may be the case, the Speaker didn’t put Social Security cuts in the House’s budget or even request that they be added as an amendment.  The President did.  The claim that he didn’t own the proposal when his budget owned the proposal is not the only contradiction surrounding the Chained CPI proposal, but it’s one of the more notable ones.

Related: Why the Chained CPI is Wrong for Social Security

Just before the President released his budget this month AARP released national and state polling asking specific questions about the Chained CPI proposal that would cut benefits for veterans, children, widows, retirees, and people with disabilities as well as raise taxes for most Americans.  To no one’s surprise, except perhaps the President and his staff, the vast majority of older voters, the people who make up a large proportion of the voters in the 2014 midterm elections, had strong feelings against making cuts to our Social Security benefits.

We’ve seen that the message the White House uses to defend its own budget isn’t being bought by members of the President’s party nor is it being bought by many in the GOP.  Speaker Boehner dismissed the President’s budget and one of the Speaker’s House leadership team, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), called the budget proposal a “shocking attack on seniors.”  Of course Walden got in to trouble with one of quasi-bosses, the Speaker, while his actual boss, the people in Oregon’s second Congressional district didn’t seem to mind his comments in support of them.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Another of the contradictory things the President and his staff have said about the benefit cut for veterans, children, widows, people with disabilities and seniors is that it’s a “small tweak.”  In the budget released by the President is also the line that “most economists find the Chained CPI [the benefit cut] to be more accurate.”  This line is as blatant a lie as the “small tweak” line.  While economically speaking many agree the formula is accurate, most of the people who agree on its accuracy also agree that it isn’t at all accurate for seniors, because it doesn’t calculate the money older Americans spend on health care.

The President’s budget ties itself in knots by carving out multiple groups from the Chained CPI to ‘protect the most vulnerable.’  If it’s more accurate, then why does anyone need to be protected from it?

For example, older Americans would get a so-called “birthday bump” as Social Security beneficiaries, with an $800 bonus added to their benefits after a certain amount of time.  If the formula were more accurate, they wouldn’t need any such bonus or bump.  But the $800 bump unintentionally emphasizes that the Chained CPI is in fact a benefit cut.

Other groups could face multiple cuts to their benefits.  For example, a disabled veteran may face two benefit cuts if the Chained CPI becomes law: one as veteran benefits would be cut by the new formula, and one as Social Security benefits are cut by the new formula.

AARP believes the Chained CPI shouldn’t be applied to anyone, and that Americans deserve a separate debate about strengthening Social Security, a program that doesn’t contribute to the deficit.  After all, the government borrows from Social Security, which has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay benefits in full until 2033.  So there’s no need to propose changes that would harm our veterans, children, widows, people with disabilities and older Americans.

To review, four myths, or contradictions we’ve seen in the President’s budget on Chained CPI:

MYTH: Chained CPI is a more accurate measure for inflation.
FACT: If it were more accurate, the President’s budget wouldn’t need to turn the formula on its head and carve out only certain groups while others suffer the unnecessary consequences of benefit cuts.

MYTH: Many Republicans and Democrats agree with Chained CPI.
FACT: Numerous Republicans and Democrats immediately distanced themselves from the President’s budget when they saw that he had included Chained CPI which would be a benefit cut for children, widows, veterans, people with disabilities and seniors.  The Chained CPI would also increase taxes on most Americans.

MYTH: The Republicans made the President do it.
FACT: Neither the Republican House of Representatives nor the Democratic U.S. Senate included Chained CPI in their budgets.  Both of these budgets passed their respective chambers.

MYTH: It’s just a small tweak.
FACT: The Chained CPI is no small change.  It’s a massive benefit cut that impacts children, widows, veterans, people with disabilities, retirees. Chained CPI also raises taxes on most Americans, which is why even the conservative Americans for Tax Reform opposes it.

Let’s work to convince the President and Congress these myths don’t belong in anyone’s budget.

Also of Interest

• The 3 Budget Plans: How Do They Stack Up?
• Help for 50-Somethings Short on Retirement Funds
• Join AARP: Savings, resources and news for your well-being

See the AARP home page for deals, savings tips, trivia and more

Tom Tarantino of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) talks about the Chained CPI and how it would be a slap in the face to veterans who have sacrificed and earned their benefits:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Not mentioned in a recent spate of generational warfare columns from billionaires and their affiliates is the fact that that about 4.4 million children receive Social Security benefits because one or both of their parents are disabled, retired or deceased, according to the Social Security Administration. Those benefits help provide necessities of life for family members and help to make it possible for those children to complete high school. When a parent becomes disabled or dies, Social Security benefits help to stabilize the family’s financial future.

Some of these children have parents who passed away or now have a disability resulting from their service to our country in uniform. These children and the people who look after them, whether it’s their parents, grandparents or someone else in their lives, would suffer under the COLA cut known as chained CPI.

Neither the Republican House budget nor the Senate Democratic budget have Chained or Superlative CPI in them.  If the President decides he needs to add it to his budget, any Washington politician affiliated with his budget might see a grandfather whose son or daughter died while serving our country, a spouse whose husband or wife is disabled and who stands to lose benefits, or a child who lost a parent that served in a campaign ad tying them to the President’s Social Security cutting budget proposal.  The Obama administration has pushed back by saying that they’d exempt some from cuts, but they haven’t specifically identified who would receive an exemption.

Social Security by law is not part of the deficit.  By putting it in the deficit debate, the President has not made a “difficult” or “tough” decision, he has made a bad one that endangers the brave men and women who serve or served our country and their families.

Sam Lyles, a 27-year Army veteran from Tennessee, shares the impact on veterans that changing the way cost of living is calculated for retirement benefits:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Below are AARP’s Top 5 reasons why the chained CPI is bad policy for veterans:

1. It’s a benefit cut. The chained CPI is a significant benefit cut, not some “technical change” as some in Washington would like you to believe. With almost 1.5 million veterans living below the poverty level, every dollar cut has a huge impact.
2. Cuts get deeper every year. The chained CPI would cut benefits more with every passing year, costing veterans thousands of dollars over their lifetimes with the highest cuts coming at the time when veterans are older and rely on benefits the most.
3. It’s less accurate. The chained CPI assumes that when the cost of something you normally buy goes up, you will substitute a lower-cost item. This theory falls short since many older and disabled veterans spend much of their money on basic goods like heath care items that rise faster than inflation and don’t have lower-cost substitutes.
4. Disabled veterans will face deep benefit cuts. Disabled veterans will see a greater share of these cuts since they rely on these benefits starting at a younger age and for longer periods of time than others. Under the chained CPI, a 30-year old veteran with severe disabilities would see his or her veterans’ benefits reduced annually by $1,425 at age 45, $2,341 at 55 and $3,231 at 65.
5. Older veterans would be hurt twice. Since Social Security and veterans benefits will both be cut by the chained CPI, older veterans would be hurt twice by the cut. A 65-year old veteran would see his or her veterans’ benefits reduced annually by $1,029 and Social Security benefits by $1,422 at 95, when benefits are needed the most.

Let’s first talk about the dramatic dialogue that unfolded at the White House when longtime NPR reporter Mara Liasson asked a perfectly valid question about these very benefits.  Who knows why exactly White House Press Secretary Jay Carney lashed out at her?  But his actions seemed to demonstrate that Carney’s role in disguising the White House’s actual motives reached a breaking point. It’s not a common assumption that being White House Press Secretary is easy, but hurling insults doesn’t usually answer smart reporters’ questions.

Here’s what Mara Liasson asked with regard to the President’s twice postponed budget: “On the budget, can we assume that the entitlement reform ideas — that are in the offer that you always say is still on the table — will be in his budget — Superlative [Chained] CPI, and the means testing of Medicare?”

In response to the question, Carney hurled a childish insult toward the White House press corps, in a feeble attempt to get them to stop asking about what matters to Americans.  He said “Mara, the way you phrase that question makes me think that you’re still working on a typewriter or something.  [Pounds the podium] It’s available online.  The proposal is there.  It’s not just that I say they’re on the table.  They’re on the table …”

Click here to view the embedded video.

So how does this relate back to Americans with disabilities, and the ways that a cut in Social Security benefits would impact them?

Let’s ignore the insult and look at what’s available online.  It’s a one-page document that says $130 billion would be cut from Social Security and veterans’ benefits.  The White House insists they would carve out vulnerable Americans, but despite repeated attempts by reporters and outside groups, including AARP, the White House refuses to provide specifics about who exactly would be protected.  They won’t tell anyone a thing, but they will hurl unique typewriter insults.  As Carney well knows, there are lots of things online, including one zillion cute animal videos, but nothing that tells us whose benefits the White House wants to cut.

Here’s video of Tom Tarantino from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) at an AARP panel held this week on Capitol Hill saying the White House won’t tell veterans what’s what either.  I suspect Mr. Carney won’t hurl an insult toward the fine men and women who defended our country, but it’s arguably an insult that he won’t tell them whether the White House wants to cut some veterans’ benefits not once, but twice.

Video: AARP Chained CPI Panel — Tom Tarantino on White House’s Indifference to Veteran Benefit Cuts

Below are AARP’s top 5 reasons why the chained CPI would hurt people with disabilities, including veterans with disabilities:

1. People with disabilities can least afford a cut in benefits. On average, people with disabilities receive only $13,560 in yearly benefits and 37 percent depend on it for nearly all of their family income (90 percent or more).
2. People with disabilities will face deep benefit cuts. The chained CPI would cut benefits more with every passing year, and people with disabilities — who rely on Social Security payments starting at a younger age and therefore for many more years — will see very deep cuts in benefits over time. A 35-year-old disabled worker who receives average disability benefits would see his or her benefits reduced annually by $886 at 65 and $1,301 at 80.
3. People with disabilities have a greater chance of falling into poverty. Social Security keeps nearly 40 percent of people with disabilities age 18+ and their families out of poverty. The benefit cut would force those already living on tight budgets — stretched by rising prescription drug, utility and health care costs — to cut back on vital needs.
4. It’s less accurate. The chained CPI assumes that when the cost of something you normally buy goes up, you will substitute a lower-cost item. This theory falls short since many people with disabilities spend a large share of their income (around $4,200 a year on average for Medicare beneficiaries with at least one disability) on health care — which rises faster than inflation and doesn’t have lower-cost substitutes.
5. Disabled veterans would be hurt twice. Since Social Security and veterans benefits will both be cut by the chained CPI, disabled veterans would be hurt twice. By age 65, a 30-year-old veteran with severe disabilities would see his or her veterans’ benefits reduced by $3,286/year and Social Security benefits reduced by $1,655/year.

To learn exactly what kind of cut the chained CPI would take out of your income, see AARP’s chained CPI calculator here.

This week AARP began running ads about the impact of what the Chained CPI Social Security benefit cuts would mean to women.  Below is a copy of one of those ads.  In the weeks ahead we’ll roll out new ads showing what the cuts would mean to other groups of people.  I’ll also come back with even more reasons we need to kill this proposal.  For anyone that sees this as a generational effort, Social Security also provides benefits for girls and boys who have lost a parent, and older Americans overwhelmingly want to see Social Security in existence for the generations that come long after them.

From AARP here are 5 reasons why the Social Security benefit cut known as Chained CPI would negatively impact women:

1. Women can least afford a cut in benefits. Women earn less on average than men, are more likely to work part-time, and are more likely to have gaps in their employment. All these factors result in lower average annual benefits for women (about $13,000) then men (about $17,000).

2. Women will face deeper cuts. The chained CPI would cut benefits more with every passing year, and women will see a greater share of these cuts since they tend to live longer and make up a larger share of the population as it ages. More than two out of three (68 percent) Social Security beneficiaries age 85+ are women.

3. Women rely more on Social Security for nearly all of their income. Women are less likely to have other sources of retirement income, such as pensions and savings, and rely more on Social Security for nearly all of their income. In 2010, 38 percent of older women age 80+ that lived in a family receiving Social Security relied on it for 90 percent or more of their income, compared to 28 percent of older men age 80+.

4. Social Security keeps women out of poverty. In 2011, Social Security kept roughly 38 percent of older women out of poverty, compare to 32 percent of older men.

5.  It’s less accurate. The chained CPI assumes that when the cost of something you normally buy goes up, you will substitute a lower-cost item. This theory falls short since many seniors spend much of their money on basic goods like heath care – items that rise faster than inflation and don’t have lower-cost substitutes. The burden of health care spending is even greater for women (18.7 percent of income compared with 14.2 percent for men) because their benefits are lower and health care spending is higher.

To learn exactly what kind of cut the Chained CPI would take out of your income, see AARP’s Chained CPI calculator here.

This week before the President’s State of the Union address, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the President won’t advocate for raising the age of Medicare beneficiaries but that he’s absolutely willing to cut our Social Security benefits.  Carney’s tune dramatically changed the narrative from the 2012 campaign by saying said that the President wouldn’t “ask seniors to bear the burden of further deficit reduction alone.”  During the 2012 election candidates from both political parties said they wouldn’t ask seniors to bear the burden of deficit reduction at all.  Now the President’s spokesman says he’d do so, asking seniors on fixed incomes, many of whom rely solely on Social Security, to give up some of their modest benefit they’ve earned.

As we head in to the latest debate on sequestration, today AARP continues to show Congress, the President and Americans that resorting to a draconian Chained CPI would force current retirees to lose a whole lot of money that they’ve earned.  We’ve released a Chained CPI  calculator, showing exactly how much we’d lose if Washington politicians change the way the cost-of-living adjustment is calculated for Social Security and veterans benefits.  The calculator can be found at www.aarp.org/whatyoulose.

In January AARP held an event at the National Press Club about the Middle Class.  Three top officials including AARP’s CEO Barry Rand spoke about the steps we need to take to have a thriving Middle Class.  Today’s New York Times says that President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union “put the prosperity and promise of the middle class at the heart of his second-term agenda.”  The speech, which took place on Mardi Gras, contained some of the same elements of AARP’s focus on the Middle Class.

But there’s a colossal difference between the AARP event and the President’s focus on the Middle Class.  Mr. Rand spoke about the need for a separate conversation on the solvency and adequacy of Social Security. The President, and some members of Congress in both parties, in stark contrast, have telegraphed their willingness to cut Social Security benefits for current and near-retirees.   In the long term, Social Security must be fixed.  The President and some other Washington politicians have proposed breaking it.

If the President, and other Washington politicians put cutting our Social Security benefits in a deficit cutting plan via the Chained CPI, they won’t do it in a manner that’s obvious.  Instead they’ll likely stick to the playbook that has defined their willingness to talk about benefit cuts so far and Americans may one day wake up with an economic hangover worse than any Mardi Gras reveler experienced this morning, forcing many of us from the Middle Class into poverty.

The glossary below helps define innocuous-sounding words and phrases you may hear in speeches and press releases from Washington politicians, White House staff, and pundits, in ongoing deficit talks.  Please sign AARP’s petition asking the White House and Congress not to cut our benefits today.

When members of Congress head home from Washington next week, many will meet with AARP volunteers who will be asking them not to cut the benefits we’ve earned, and to have a separate conversation about Social Security.  Here are some of the words they’ll be looking for.

The Glossary of Benefit Cutting Phrases:

Basic benefits:  If any Washington politician mentions “leaving your basic benefits alone” they may simply be telling us that they’ll look to cut our benefits via a COLA cut, formula cut, or a cut by doing something like changing the eligibility age.  Politicians say “basic benefits” because they can then spin what they mean by the word “basic.”

Example: I won’t vote for any package that cuts the basic benefits of older Americans.

Question to ask a Washington politician as a follow-up: Why would you vote for any package that cuts any benefits?

Formula change or Formula adjustment: The “Chained CPI” is a formula used to calculate inflation, and is different than the current formula used to calculate Social Security benefits, the “Chained CPI-W.”  Lost?  That’s the point.  If a Washington politician speaks about formula changes without telling us how amazing it’ll be and why it’ll be amazing, they’re most likely trying to cut our benefits.

Example: We’re just making a slight formula change that some economists say would calculate the rate of inflation better.

Question to ask a Washington politician as a follow-up: Would that formula change result in cutting my already modest Social Security benefits or my cost of living adjustment (COLA), which has only risen twice in four years?

Small technical change or small technical adjustment: A small technical change or adjustment mentioned by a Washington politician is no such thing when it comes to Chained CPI.  Changing the formula used to calculate inflation would result in $112 billion over ten years coming directly from the pockets of retirees.  Also see formula change.

Example: Jay Carney on February 12, 2013 from the White House said “He [The President] has put forward, as a technical change, as part of a big deal — and it’s on the table that he put forward to the speaker of the House…”

Question to ask a Washington politician as a follow-up: Would that formula change result in taking $112 billion, or a month’s worth of Social Security benefits over a single year as we age?

Tough decisions, Hard choices, or Hard decisions: When the President or others talk about hard choices, they’re talking about cutting benefits paired with other items including spending cuts or tax increases.  When Congress makes a “hard decision” they’re usually making someone mad.  In the case of the “hard decision” to cut benefits, it’s not a hard decision at all.  If Congress has a separate conversation about fixing Social Security, a program separate from the budget, they’ll

Example: Jay Carney on February 12, 2013 from the White House said “He [The President] he would consider the hard choice that includes the so-called chained CPI — in fact, he put that on the table in his proposal — but not in a cherry-picked or piecemeal way.”

Question to ask a Washington politician as a follow-up: If it’s such a hard choice, why not have a separate conversation about making Social Security more adequate and solvent for Americans since by law, it’s not part of the deficit?