“In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary,” the leaders write.

Senate leaders made clear their willingness to pursue balanced approach to cutting spending and reducing our deficit, but reiterated their insistence that any approach be a balanced between smart cuts and revenues from the wealthiest Americans.

###

The full text of the letter is below.

January 11, 2013

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

As you know, Republican leaders are threatening to bring on an economic catastrophe unless Democrats make deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

This threat is outrageous and absurd. Defaulting on America’s legal obligations would undermine the American economy and spread global economic havoc. Just two years ago, Speaker Boehner himself admitted that failure to raise the debt limit “would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy.”

It is hard to imagine that the Speaker and Leader McConnell would really follow through on their threat to let our nation default on its debts. They are responsible leaders who know better. Sadly, some of their Republican colleagues do not. Therefore, we believe that you must make clear that you will never allow our nation’s economy and reputation to be held hostage. In the event that Republicans make good on their threat by failing to act, or by moving unilaterally to pass a debt limit extension only as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation, we believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without Congressional approval, if necessary.

As you know, increasing the debt limit does not authorize new spending. It merely ensures that we meet our existing obligations. Those obligations were incurred by both Republicans and Democrats, and are the responsibility of all Americans.

Accordingly, we hope that you will continue to ignore claims that agreeing to an increase in the debt limit would somehow represent a concession by Republicans to Democrats. All Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, have a stake in ensuring that our country meets its legal obligations. Financial markets have long viewed securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States as the most trustworthy in the world. This lowers borrowing costs for homes, cars, and college for all Americans and strengthens our economy. If we violate that trust for the first time in history, we will never fully regain it, and every American will suffer.

For all these reasons, we support your view that an extension of the debt limit is not something for which Democrats should have to negotiate. At the same time, as a separate matter, we agree about the importance of developing a broad, bipartisan agreement on fiscal policy that strengthens our economy and reduces our long-term budget deficit.

As you have said, any such agreement must treat all Americans fairly and include not just responsible spending cuts but additional revenue from the wealthy and the elimination of wasteful tax breaks. It would be wrong to slash earned benefits for seniors and middle class families, while allowing corporations, millionaires, and billionaires to continue to exploit wasteful tax loopholes. We therefore hope that you will continue to insist that the entire budget be on the table, and that any agreement be fully balanced and fair.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Respectfully,

Senator Harry Reid
Senator Dick Durbin
Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Parry Murray

A PDF of the letter can be found online here.

“Seventy-seven years ago today, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed a promise to all Americans guaranteeing that their ability to retire with dignity would not be left to the mercy of the economic winds. Social Security continues to fulfill that promise by providing a secure retirement to seniors in Nevada and across the country.

“Unfortunately, this promise is under attack from Republicans like Representative Paul Ryan and Governor Mitt Romney, who have shown they want to privatize Social Security and put seniors at the mercy of the stock market. As we have seen on issue after issue, Republicans like Ryan and Romney would rather gut Social Security than join with Democrats in a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines smart spending cuts with asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.

“After working hard their entire lives, America’s seniors deserve to retire with dignity. Our nation’s seniors expect their elected officials to keep the promise that was made almost eight decades ago. They can count on Democrats to keep the promise of Social Security.”

“By picking Representative Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has doubled down on his commitment to gut Social Security and end Medicare as we know it. Romney’s choice demonstrates that catering to the Tea Party and the far-right is more important to him that standing up for the middle class.

“The months ahead will provide Americans with a clear choice between the Romney-Ryan plan to gut Social Security and Medicare, and Democrats’ balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines smart spending cuts with asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. Democrats in the Senate look forward to engaging in that debate.”

Sixty years ago, this nation’s Armed Forces were segregated by race.

Thirty-five years ago women weren’t allowed to attend our nation’s military academies.

And until today, thousands of qualified, dedicated men and women were barred from military service or expelled from the Armed Forces because they were honest about their sexual orientation.

Today, I am glad to say that the time has passed when Americans willing to give their lives to defend this great nation could be turned away from service because of who they love.

Today, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is no longer the law of the land.

For 17 years we have asked our soldiers to defend a flag that stands for liberty and justice for all and then required some of those soldiers to keep who they really are a secret.

And in too many cases we have robbed them of the right to fight for their country altogether. More than 13,000 American service members have been discharged because of this law, which institutionalized discrimination against openly gay soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.

And we’ll never know how many more capable men and women never offered patriotic service to their country because the law exposed them to career-ruining discrimination.

The military’s highest commanders and a vast majority of service members agree our fighting force is better off knowing that we’ll have the best and brightest volunteers, regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion or gender.

There is no place for intolerance in this great nation, nor in the Armed Forces tasked with protecting it.

I am glad to say that today our military policies and our national values are at last in line.

From today forward, no qualified man or woman willing to fight for a nation founded on the principles of tolerance and equality will ever again be denied the right to do so.

On Wednesday the House will send us a continuing resolution to fund the government through November 18.

I was disappointed to see that the House shortchanged the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by failing to provide the funding to adequately help Americans whose lives have been devastated by floods, hurricanes and tornados.

Last week, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill granting FEMA and other agencies that help disaster victims an additional $6.9 billion. That funding will help rebuild after several costly natural disasters, including Hurricane Irene.

Tomorrow, when the Senate receives the House bill to fund the government for six more weeks, we will amend it with the language of the Senate FEMA legislation. This year, President Obama has declared disasters in all but two states, and FEMA is quickly running out of money to help American families and communities recover.

Of course, I know this amendment will enjoy the support of my Republican colleagues, as it did just last week, when a bipartisan group of Senators agreed that helping communities destroyed by natural disasters was too important to let politics get in the way.

Americans have sent a message to Congress that no issue is more important to them than jobs.

But for Republicans, job creation is less important than slashing spending on initiatives that create jobs and the Social Security and Medicare benefits seniors have earned.

Democrats believe we can reduce the deficit without abandoning job creation.

We can make smart, strategic cuts that won’t further slow down our struggling economy while protecting and advancing initiatives that create jobs. That’s why President Obama has released detailed proposals to create 2 million jobs now while reducing our deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade.

But Republicans have criticized both proposals before even looking at their substance.

They are more concerned with protecting millionaires, billionaires, hedge fund managers and private jet owners than fighting for the middle class.

They claim it is class warfare to ask the wealthiest 400 Americans – who made an average $271 million apiece in 2008 – to pay the same tax rate as librarians, police officers and air traffic controllers.

The truth is Republicans are just defending the economic policies that have besieged the middle class for years.

It’s class warfare to ask middle-class Americans to get by on less while those same 400 Americans are paying less than 18 percent of their income in taxes – a lower rate than the secretaries and janitors who work for them.

Let me be clear: Democrats will do whatever it takes to protect the middle class and seniors, even if it means the richest of the rich in American have to contribute a little bit more than they do now.

We will fight for the policies that create American jobs, even if that means CEOs and hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions of dollars a year have to contribute the same amount or more as teachers and firefighters whose salaries are a tiny fraction the size of theirs.

That’s simple fairness.

With 14 million Americans out of work, we have 14 million reasons to put job creation ahead of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

As the economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said, “True patriotism isn’t cheap. It’s about taking on a fair share of the burden of keeping America going.”

WASHINGTON, DC— Hoy la Bancada Demócrata del Senado celebró una rueda de prensa, pidiéndole a los republicanos que cesen de obstruir la última opción viable para evitar una crisis económica. Después de negarse a negociar con los demócratas ayer, los republicanos del Senado recurrieron a la opción del filibusterismo para bloquear la medida demócrata—la cual incluye una larga lista de propuestas republicanas—como el último intento para evitar la catástrofe que se desataría si Estados Unidos pierde su capacidad crediticia el martes a la media noche.

La Bancada Demócrata fue acompañada por estadounidenses de todo tipo, como personas retiradas, estudiantes, veteranos y otros estadounidenses quienes podrían caer en la ruina si Estados Unidos no es capaz de pagar sus obligaciones, como los cheques de seguro social y los salarios de los veteranos.

Para ver el video de la conferencia de prensa y escuchar el mensaje de Lucila, una beneficiaria del Seguro Social haga click aquí

Entre ellos, Lucila Torres, quien trabajó 35 años como asistente en una guardiera, contribuyéndole al país su parte y teme perder su único ingreso – su pensión del Seguro Social y sus beneficios del Medicare. Ambos son vitales, ya que Lucila sufre de cardiopatía y solo cuenta con estos recursos para poder vivir una vida saludable.

José Dante Parra/Nathaly Arriola, Reid, (202) 224-2939

###

WASHINGTON, DC—The Senate Democratic caucus  held a news conference today to call on Senate Republican leaders to end their filibuster of the last remaining viable option to avoid a default. After refusing to negotiate with Democrats all day yesterday, the Senate Republicans mounted a filibuster on a compromise bill introduced by Majority Leader Harry Reid in a final attempt to avoid the financial catastrophe that will be caused if America loses its borrowing authority on Wednesday.

The Senate Democrats caucus was joined by Americans from all walks of life, including seniors, students, veterans and other Americans who could face financial ruin if American can no longer pay its bills- such as, social Security checks and veterans salaries.

Among those who joined the Senate Caucus was Lucila Torres, who through her hard work and 35 years of contributions to this country, is in danger of losing her only income – her Social Security pension and Medicare benefits – which helps her maintain her heart disease under control. Both are vital considering that at her advanced age, these are the only resources available to her in order to live a healthy life.

José Dante Parra/Nathaly Arriola, Reid, (202) 224-2939

###

Today the House will consider legislation that would force the nation to default on our financial obligations for the first time in history unless Congress adopts a radical new constitutional amendment.

That amendment would impose arbitrary, reckless budget caps that would – without a doubt – force massive cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other crucial benefits. At the same time, it would constitutionally protect wasteful loopholes and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

To meet an arbitrary spending cap frozen at 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product, it would shrink benefits and services back to levels not seen since 1966. In 1966, Medicare was one year old and there were 100 million fewer people in this country.

For those who think rewinding 45 years is a good thing, consider how much America has changed since 1966. For example, life expectancy is 9 years longer today than it was 45 years ago.

Medicare has allowed Americans to live longer, healthier lives. This legislation would roll back that progress.

And it would enshrine in the Constitution a set of priorities so backward, even Republican advisors to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have called it unwise.

In the first decade alone, it would mean more than $3,000 a year in cuts to each senior’s Social Security check. It would slash our social safety net, decimating Medicaid and cutting Medicare benefits by $2,500 for every senior.

In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that within 25 years, it will slash government benefits and services in half. That includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits and every other government service, no matter how essential.

Yet it would make it almost impossible to end even the most wasteful tax breaks and loopholes already in place, such as handouts to oil companies making record profits, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and rich people who buy yachts or and private jets. It would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress to raise even a penny of new revenue.

Meanwhile, it does absolutely nothing to protect our economy from the kind of recession from which we are beginning to recover. In fact, if the economy wasn’t already in a recession, experts say this legislation would quickly produce one.

Bruce Bartlett, an economic advisor to President Reagan and a Treasury official under President Bush, said the kind of rapid spending cuts called for in this House legislation would “unquestionably throw the economy into recession.”

This legislation goes beyond the draconian budget that Republicans passed earlier this year. That budget would have ended Medicare as we know it. It would also have cut clean energy by 70%, axed education funding and cost hundreds of thousands of private-sector jobs.

This is worse. It would attack all the same programs, but its cuts would be deeper. And it would slash Social Security as well.

This legislation is so restrictive, Republicans’ own budget – the budget they passed this year – would not meet its standards.

It is so restrictive, not one year of either the George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan administrations would meet its standards.

Of the last 30 years, the only two years that would make the cut were during the Clinton administration.

As the Washington Post said, “Every single Senate Republican has endorsed a constitutional amendment that would’ve made Ronald Reagan’s fiscal policy unconstitutional. That’s how far to the right the modern GOP has swung.”

Bruce Bartlett, the economic advisor to Reagan, said this about the legislation:

“This is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.”

And that, in my opinion, is being awfully hard on the interns.

Bill Hoagland, a budget advisor to Republican Congressional leaders for 25 years, described it best when he labeled this legislation a “misleading political cheap shot.”

A balanced budget is something we can all get behind. But this legislation isn’t really about balancing the budget. It’s about scoring political points.

But based on 30 years of evidence and Republicans’ own measuring stick, the stunt falls flat.

After all, who do you think helped President Clinton balance the budget during the only two years of the last 30 that actually lived up to the restrictive rules outlined in this legislation? It was Democrats in Congress.

Today, Democrats are trying to rein in spending again. We’re also trying to avert a catastrophic default on our nation’s financial obligations.

Republicans are the ones standing in the way of a deal to avert default, refusing to move an inch despite our offers to cut trillions from the deficit.

As conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote in the New York Times yesterday, we could already be on the way to a deal if, “more Republicans had only recognized that sometimes a well-chosen concession can be the better part of valor.”

“The Senate has no more important task than making sure the United States does not fail to pay our bills for pre-existing obligations like Social Security for the first time in our history. To ensure that we meet this responsibility, the Senate will stay in session every day, including Saturdays and Sundays,  from now until Congress passes legislation that prevents the United States from defaulting on our obligations.”

“What do you do when you’re scared that the centerpiece of your entire agenda is about to be exposed as a Trojan horse for your real goal of ending Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? You kick and scream and create a diversion, just like Republicans are doing now by criticizing a plan they haven’t even seen yet.

“Democrats are serious about reducing the deficit and protecting seniors’ hard-earned benefits, unlike Republicans who are rejecting the president’s plan without even reading it. Republicans’ shallow, knee-jerk reaction proves that their posturing on the deficit is just an attempt to distract from their bankrupt ideas.”

“Next year’s Republican budget is a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle Medicare for tens of millions of Americans.  We need to do everything possible to responsibly reduce our debt, but we should do that by holding government accountable and eliminating programs that aren’t working, not by putting all of the burden on middle class families and seniors.  Pulling the rug out from under seniors who have paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire lives is wrong, and extreme plans that dismantle benefits seniors have earned will not pass the Senate.”

Washington, D.C.–Today Senators Harry Reid, Tom Harkin, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken and Richard Blumenthal told Republicans to “Back Off Social Security” during an event with more than 300 of the program’s supporters. The senators  discussed the GOP’s dangerous plan to privatize Social Security, ending the program as we know it.

Republicans’ dangerous spending plan also calls for draconian cuts to the Social Security Administration, which could lead to delays in the distribution of benefits.

“Seventy-five years ago, our nation made the promise that if you work hard and contribute, America will make sure you can retire in dignity. That promise is called Social Security, and it’s a promise that must never be broken,” Sen. Reid said. “But Republicans have shown they couldn’t care less about those who have the least. Their plan on Social Security is simple, and it’s this: end it.  They use words like ‘privatize’ and ‘personalize.’  But they’re all code words for the same thing: ending Social Security as we know it.”

“Let’s remember who we are talking about when it comes to protecting Social Security – our parents and grandparents, children and neighbors,” Sen. Harkin said.  “Social Security provides our families and friends with a safety net as they grow old.   Despite that fact, the same people who wanted to leave Social Security to the whims of the stock market in the years before the financial crisis are now using the budget debate as an excuse to give another handout to money managers on Wall Street. The promise of Social Security is one that we must keep and one which we will continue to insist on for future generations.”

“Social Security is the most successful federal program in our nation’s history and we cannot allow it to be dismantled by Wall Street and those in the Republican Party who want to take us back to the 1920s when half of our nation’s seniors were living in abject poverty,” Sen. Sanders said.

“Social Security provides a safety net for Minnesota families torn apart by unspeakable tragedy and allows America’s retirees to age with dignity,” Sen. Franken said. “Social Security has nothing to do with reducing the deficit.  Social Security benefits should not be cut at all, for anyone, as part of efforts to reduce the deficit.”

“We’ve heard all the scare tactics before, but people in Connecticut and across the country just aren’t buying it – for decades, Social Security benefits have kept millions of senior and disabled Americans out of poverty,” Sen. Blumenthal said. “Cutting Social Security benefits won’t reduce our deficit or debt, and the American people expect us to make smart, strategic choices about cutting spending – not to do it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.”

“Rep. Cantor’s claim that we need to cut seniors’ Social Security checks today to balance the budget is flat-out wrong.  Blaming Social Security for our deficit is nothing but an ideological attempt to slash benefits and privatize the program.”

“We have said from day one that Republicans’ reckless spending plan is a non-starter because it would destroy 700,000 American jobs, weaken our border security and slash housing for homeless veterans. Now that it has been defeated, Republicans have no excuses left. It’s time for them to work with us to on a responsible, long-term solution that funds our government for the rest of the year, makes responsible cuts and safeguards our fragile economic recovery.

“Democrats have put $51 billion in cuts on the table, but so far Republicans have refused to abandon even the most extreme of their reckless proposals. Republicans’ irresponsible approach would devastate millions of middle class families and jeopardize our security, but it would never yield the savings we need to actually reduce our deficit and balance the budget. To address this issue in a serious, responsible way, I believe that the entire budget, which does not include Social Security, should be on the table. We need to start making tough decisions in order to achieve lasting solutions.”

Slashes Title I Education Funding, Putting 1 Million Students and 10,000 Jobs at Risk. The House plan cuts an additional $5 billion from the Department of Education, including slashing Title I education funding by nearly $700 million, meaning 2,400 schools serving 1 million disadvantaged students could lose funding, and approximately 10,000 teachers, aides and staff could lose their jobs.

Slashes Maximum Pell Grant Award By $845 Per Student. The House plan will cut the maximum Pell Grant award by $845 from $4,860 to $4,015, a 17 percent cut.

Slashes Head Start By 20%, Eliminating the Program for 218,000 Children and Forcing 55,000 Layoffs. The House bill funds Head Start at $6.1 billion, a cut of nearly $1.1 billion from the FY 2010 enacted level.  At the House level, HHS would have to cut approximately 218,000 low-income children and their families, a cut of over 20 percent.  This would involve laying off an estimated 55,000 teachers and related staff.

Eliminates Race to the Top & AmeriCorps. The House plan provides no funding to key K-12 priorities, including Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, the Early Learning Challenge Fund.  In addition, the House plan eliminates AmeriCorps.

Slashes Food Safety Inspection Funding By $100 Million, Stopping Inspections and Costing the Economy and Businesses $11 Billion. The House plan reduces funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service by $100 million. This would force many meat and poultry plants to shut down for more than a month during inspector furloughs, resulting in economic losses of approximately $11 billion and potentially leading to a spike in consumer prices.

Slashes Support for the WIC Program, Covering Fewer Women and Children Struggling to Get Back on Their Feet. The House plan reduces funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) by 10%, or nearly $750 million. At this rate, the program would need to dip into contingency funds or turn families away to cover the 9.3 million participants in 2011.

Slashes EPA Funding By Nearly 30% From Current Levels. The House plan cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 29% from the FY10 enacted level.

Slashes Funding for Renewable Energy By $787 Million. The House bill provides $787 million below the current level for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Furthermore, the bill appears to provide no new funds for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which falls within this account. The bill would significantly delay needed investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy R&D, demonstration and deployment programs critical to the transition to a Clean Energy Economy.

Slashes Funding for the SEC & CFTC, Hindering Wall Street Enforcement and Consumer Protections. The House bill provides $188 million less for the Securities and Exchange Commission than the Obama Administration requested for FY11 and $149 million less for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission than the FY11 request, severely impairing SEC’s ability to implement the Dodd-Frank Act.

Slashes Funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Rolling Back Critical Investments in Innovation. The House bill reduces funding for NIST by $223 million below the Obama Administration’s FY11 request and $162 million below FY 2010.  This steep reduction could lead to construction halts and damage the Administration’s innovation initiatives.

Slashes Investment in Science Research, Hurting More Than 5,000 Researchers, Teachers and Students. The House bill slashes funding for the National Science Foundation by more than $300 million below current levels. The likely impacts of these cuts are 1,800 fewer research and education grants supporting over 5,000 researchers, teachers, and students, and significant cost and schedule growth for one or more of the major facility construction projects.

Slashes Funding for State and Local FEMA Programs, Impacting First Responders and Homeland Security. The House bill reduces funding for FEMA State and Local Programs by $1.4 billion.   This level significantly reduces funding to hire firefighters and other first responders and cuts funding to support port and transit security.

Slashes Funding for Border Technology Initiatives. The House bill reduces funding for the Department of Homeland Security’s border technology initiative by $243 million (including rescissions of prior year amounts).  This will result in a slow-down in the deployment of new and much needed border surveillance technologies.

Slashes Investment in Job Training When Workers Need it Most. The House bill completely zeroes out all new funding for WIA’s (title I) Adult, Dislocated Workers and Youth formula grant programs in Program Year 2011. If these cuts are enacted, more than 8.5 million job seekers and workers will lose services, including 130,000 veterans. In addition, the 3,000 local one-stop career centers across the country would be forced to close their doors.

Slashes Economic Development Administration Grants. The House bill cuts funding for Economic Development Administration grant programs by $80 million below the FY10 level, hindering EDA’s ability to promote competitiveness and prepare American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy.

Slashes More Than $1 Billion from NIH. The House bill slashes $1.3 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would force NIH to reduce support for more than 25,000 existing research grants and scale back clinical trials and research projects.

Slashes Investment in FAA NextGen, Leading to More Flight Delays and Hurting the Economy. The House bill provides $340 million less funding for the FAA’s NextGen program than the Obama Administration requested for FY11.  This funding level will significantly slow efforts to modernize FAA’s air traffic control system, including initiatives to develop satellite-based surveillance of air traffic, data communications capabilities, and efforts to improve aviation weather observations and forecasting.  This level will likely jeopardize FAA’s 2018 goals of reducing total flight delays by 21 percent and saving 1.4 billion gallons of fuel.

Zeroes Out Funding for High Speed Rail. The House bill zeroes out funding for High Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service.

“If Paul Ryan’s Roadmap is any indication, the House Republicans’ idea of entitlement reform will be privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher system. Any such plans will be dead on arrival in the Senate. Democrats will fight any attempt to break our promise to America’s seniors. We want to extend the life of Social Security and eliminate waste in Medicare, but we will not go along with proposals that seek to end these programs.”

###

Ryan’s Roadmap Would Privatize Social Security, End Medicare As We Know It.

Congressional Budget Office: “Roadmap” Will Privatize Social Security. The CBO wrote in a letter to Ryan about his roadmap, “A system of individual accounts would be established in 2012. In that year, workers who are age 55 or younger would be able to participate in voluntary individual accounts, funded with a portion of their payroll taxes.” [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]

•  Roadmap Would Cut Social Security Benefits.  “The Roadmap specifies reductions in traditional retirement benefits through progressive price indexing for many workers who are age 55 or younger in 2011.”  [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]

Ryan’s Plan Would Convert Medicare to a Voucher Program, Vastly Cutting Benefits. “People who become eligible for Medicare after 2020 would no longer have access to a defined set of benefits from any participating health care provider. Instead, they would receive a voucher worth $11,000 (on average) to be used to purchase private health insurance… Moreover, the Ryan plan imposes no requirement that private insurers actually offer health coverage to Medicare beneficiaries at an affordable price, or at all. Some beneficiaries, particularly the frail elderly, people with disabilities, and those with very modest incomes, could end up uninsured or heavily underinsured.” [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/7/10]

•  Roadmap Would Raise the Retirement Age For Medicare. According to the CBO the Ryan plan would eventually raise the retirement age for Medicare from 65 to 69 ½ years old.  [Congressional Budget Office, 1/27/10]