Social Services and Solvency: Long Term Unemployment Insurance

HBUD: Medicare and Social Security: Examining Solvency and Impacts to the Federal Budget, June 13, 2024

There are two ways to define solvency: budgetary and adequacy. Solvency is willingness to raise income taxes to honor Social Security Trust Fund obligations as they come due and to continue to use personal income and consumption or payroll taxes to provide adequate funding for retirees.

The solvency of the entire debt is tied to the same willingness to tax personal income. Until the 16th Amendment, a large national debt backing a stable currency was not possible. This arrangement is why the Dollar is the global currency. It will remain so as long as the debt and currency are backed by the ability and willingness to tax incomes.

This is why, when the Freedom Caucus flirts with insolvency, the Bond Rating of the debt goes down. This also threatens the welfare of American consumers in the global market.

The second way to see solvency is in the adequacy of benefits. The current system leaves most seniors and the disabled barely solvent, which requires them to use food stamps, energy assistance, assisted housing and homestead exemptions for property taxes. This inadequacy threatens state and local finance as well.

Most seniors run out of their savings or simply have not built them up in the first place. Leaving payments low is a cruel joke, because savings is not neglected because of indolence or overspending during our working years, but because incomes have been inadequate. Inflation follows the median dollar, not the median income. Percentage based COLAs, rather than equal dollar ones, magnify inequality. Most families cannot keep up.

Increased saving requires relatively safe investment options; those relatively free of speculative junk. ETFs are not free of junk. They merely hide it until it rots. MBS, crypto, under regulated commodity markets, as well as new technology - such as AI - are the usual suspects.

Pensions are safer, especially when they are not required to be "fully funded." Such a requirement ruined these instruments, forcing workers into defined contribution plans. Such plans are, by their very nature, inadequate for most workers. They can also hide junk. 

Encouraging the return of pensions by reforming solvency requirements is an essential step. Encouraging the expansion of Employee Stock Ownership Programs is another. Please see the attachment regarding asset value added taxes as a replacement to capital gains taxes, the death tax and to prevent any kind of wealth tax.

Finance: Work and Social Security Disability Benefits: Addressing Challenges and Creating Opportunities, June 18, 2024

WM Work and Welfare: Reforming Unemployment Insurance to Support American Workers and Businesses, June 04, 2024

WM Social Security: The Social Security Trust Funds in 2024 and Beyond, June 04, 2024

The fund is sound by realistic, rather than conservative scenarios. The program, as is, needs few changes to retain solvency. The proposed Social Security 2100 Act offers moderate improvements. Most families need more than this. 

Social services in the United States need a major overhaul.  The categorical grant approach reinforced a provincial view of federalism; one which created regional economies, especially in the South, with a barely hidden racist intent. The result of these policies has been to keep the region in a state of sustained poverty. Alabama Wealthy is not wealthy in the larger economy. This wound was self-inflicted.

Family incomes must be guaranteed, although not with a one size fits all subsidy. Our proposal has three components; two of which should be familiar to the Committee: 

1. An increase in the minimum wage to at least $11 per hour (if not more to account for pandemic inflation), with a $12 wage for a shorter work week.  This distributes the burden of higher wages for less work with employees and employers.
2. Increase the Child Tax Credit to levels passed by the House, with increases to at least twice that in fairly short order.
3. Replace the current menu of social programs with long term unemployment insurance at below minimum wage levels, which would be supplemented with additional funding for participation in basic education (especially for ex-offenders), employment training, psychiatric or addiction rehabilitation programs. Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance would start with this amount as a minimum, with higher benefit levels based on employment history. Dependent payments would be made through the child tax credit once it has been increased to current survivor benefit levels. 
4. Long term unemployment insurance would be awarded on a no fault basis, ending the need for eligibility investigations beyond verification of identity and for punitive disciplinary systems by employers designed to avoid paying benefits. This payment, which would be indexed for inflation, would be $10 per hour for a 28 hour week, would be tax free and funded by a national goods and services tax. States could enact higher benefit levels funded by a local GST.
5. Most, if not all, anti-poverty programs would be discontinued, although programs to increase rental housing supplies would be expanded.

Taken together, these reforms will remove the punitive features from anti-poverty programs, especially those which require an excess of red tape to participate -  the earned income tax credit and supplemental security income. 

By basing benefits on long term unemployment insurance, the period of precarity applicants face while applying for benefits is ended. This experience colors both the desire to return to work and the need to justify continued benefits.

Returning to work from disability also has a psychic cost. Participation in psychiatric rehabilitation programs on a longer-term basis than Medicaid Eligibility, as well as educational benefits, will mitigate these fears and, in the post-pandemic world, get people used to leaving home again on a regular basis. 

Medicare solvency must be discussed within the larger context of health care reform. Our proposals in this area have been provided to you are attached.

Attachment: Social Security Fundamentals, April 26, 2023

Attachment: Asset Value Added Taxes Video

Attachment: From the Budget Committee Comments (PB proposals are in boldface):

Extend ACA premium support permanently, extend low cost care in states that have not expanded Medicaid

ACA subsidies are too low and are funded by taxing the wrong people (investors). Families in the Silver Plan still have problems meeting copays and paying premiums. The funding is also unfortunate. Rather than expanding Medicaid, replace it for the non-elderly with the  Public Option proposed in 2009.  The public option should also be extended to individuals who are denied coverage under pre-existing condition rules. Such rules must be revoked as the price of passing the bill. Such a trade-off is necessary for enactment of such a proposal on a bipartisan basis. 

Extends Medicare Solvency: Strengthen Medicare by increasing NIIT (ACA-SM) and limiting pass through income reforms

As above, taxes to support Medicare should be broad based, funded either by an employer paid subtraction VAT or a border adjustable goods and services tax (credit invoice VAT). This would allow for the repeal of the ACA-SM surtax on higher income individuals enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act. Tax increases on higher income individuals should be dedicated toward fully funding net interest, eventually reducing the national debt, funding veterans healthcare and overseas military and ocean deployments. 

State governments were under financial pressure as a result of the pandemic, especially in the area of healthcare costs, most especially for seniors in nursing homes who are “dual eligibles.” The heart of President Reagan’s Federalism Proposal was the transfer of state Medicaid expenses to the federal government, largely to fund baby boomers who would become dual eligible with time. Time is now up, or will be shortly. 

Welfare has been reformed, allowing state and federal governments to save money - which was part of the New Federalism bargain that was not accepted at the time. We will address this part shortly, but the irony is that federal money was reduced without the second part of the trade-off. Finish the process and create Medicare Part E for low income disabled and retirees.

The way to fully fund healthcare is through an employer-paid subtraction value added tax.