John Burbank, EOI Executive Director

Sometimes it just makes sense to sit back, look around, and be thankful we live in the state of Washington. The Cascades and the Olympics frame the sky, the air is clear, cool and invigorating, and the days are long and gentle.

Last week I drove across the state. The I-90 corridor was brilliant with trees leafing out in their new summer green, Snoqualmie Pass was sparkling with snow patches, the run down to the Columbia River framed by otherworldly-looking and beautiful wind turbines with Mount Rainier in the rearview mirror, the grain and potato fields of the Columbia Basin green and growing, and the pioneer ponderosa pines showing up about 15 miles from Cheney, with Mount Spokane looming in the background. Coming home it was all in reverse, again breathtakingly beautiful, driving down across the Columbia at sunset, and coming on home to Seattle.

Tomorrow is the summer solstice — 17 hours of light. Every day after tomorrow we lose a little bit, and a little bit more, and suddenly we find ourselves in the fall, and then in the dark, wet, grey, and weary winter of Puget Sound. So let’s celebrate summertime, while we can!

You might decide to drive up to Mount Baker and go for a hike. If you do, you won’t be detoured by the Skagit River bridge collapse. That’s because Gov. Inslee put the hammer down and challenged the Department of Transportation to get this bridge back into operation without delay. And they did. The bridge collapsed on May 23 in the evening. You will be able to drive across it on the summer solstice, less than a month after its collapse. That’s government working for you, efficiently, effectively and without delay.

I was driving over to Cheney to talk with students and faculty at Eastern Washington University. Over half of first-year students at EWU will be the first in their families to graduate from college. It is a ladder to economic opportunity, the product of public investment in buildings, professors, and learning for over 130 years — the product of government.

But in the past decade the legislature has taken the bottom rungs out of this ladder, making it harder for middle class families to pay for tuition. Since 2002 the state has cut funding from $66 million a year to $33 million now. How did Eastern make up for this? They raised tuition from $4,000 a year to close to $9,000.

The same trends are all over the state — tuition skyrocketing, state support falling, middle class families wondering how to pay for higher education, and students going deeper and deeper into debt. There is a potential solution to this. We call it Pay It Forward. A student would not pay tuition for community college or four-year public university. After gaining her degree, she would contribute a fixed percent of her income to a public higher education trust fund — 1.5 percent for community college, 3.5 percent for regional university, 4 percent for UW — for 25 years. This funding will enable higher education for the next generation. Pay It Forward creates a debt-free degree plan for Washington students. The idea has a lot of complications, but it’s catching on, with discussions occurring all over the state. And that’s how I have gotten to see much of Washington the past month — driving the roads build by our government and taking in the incredible beauty of mountains and sound.

In 1962 I visited Seattle for the world’s fair. We were advised not to swim in Lake Washington because it had a sewer problem. Yesterday I swam in Lake Washington. That’s because over the past 50 years our government has put in new regulations on sewer discharge and built the infrastructure and treatment plants to protect the water of Lake Washington.

Our job now is not to backslide into the belief that we can do better without government. If we do away with regulation, funding for education, and the infrastructure we all take for granted, private industry won’t come running in to fill that void.

So let’s enjoy the summer solstice. We are lucky to live in the Northwest. But it is more than luck. We could be breathing smog instead of clean air. We could make our kids just watch the lake, instead of swim in it. And we could only dream of a better education for them in the future, rather than figuring out how to make that happen!

From the Everett Herald

Stan Sorscher,
EOI Board Member

We need to think differently about trade.

First, let me say that I am 100% in favor of trade. Trade is when we do what we do best, they do what they do best, and we trade. Trade, done right, will raise living standards.

If trade is good, then free trade must be better, right? So consider this old joke about “free trade.”

• It’s not free.

• It’s not trade.

Twenty years after NAFTA we can add that it doesn’t work. It’s bad for millions of workers, families and communities around the world.

“Free trade” is not free. Our free trade policy encourages production to leave the country. We’ve lost millions of manufacturing jobs. More than 60,000 manufacturing plants were closed between 2000 and 2010 as production moved overseas. These costs are real.

“Free trade” is not trade. Basically, trade is when each country makes things of value for export and gets things of comparable value in imports. In modern globalization, other countries manipulate their currencies, use tax strategies that distort exports and imports, and apply effective well-designed industrial policies to build manufacturing capacity. They export more products to us, and import fewer products from us.

Our trade deficits since NAFTA are over $8 trillion. With trade deficits this large, we are not trading. We are letting other countries produce for us. We borrow, de-industrialize, and ultimately fail to capitalize on future production opportunities. That’s not trade. That’s getting picked clean.

Figure 1. Since NAFTA we’ve consumed $8 trillion more in goods than we produced.

Figure 1. Since NAFTA we’ve consumed $8 trillion more in goods than we produced.

Additionally, language in trade agreements is not about “trade,” so much as protecting investors. The most charitable explanation I’ve heard for this is global businesses need strong “rule of law” in countries with weak legal systems. They can’t risk investing in Mexico, Peru or Jordan if their property could be taken from them. Patents and intellectual property must be protected from modern global piracy of one form or another. OK. Sure. Investors need rights.

In America, we solved the problem of protecting investor rights. We created rules for commerce among the 50 states. We innovated and helped investors prosper, AND we protected clean water and clean air AND we made social investments in schools, roads, power, arts and sciences, AND we set labor standards so workers could share in gains from productivity. Well, until recently, arguably.

The European Union also solved that problem, protecting investor rights among their 17 or 22 or 27 countries or whatever that number is, AND they invest in research and development AND educate their children AND promote sustainable energy AND share the gains from productivity with workers. Well until recently, arguably.

Modern democracies built policy solutions over generations of political engagement. We achieved an upward spiral, raising living standards for the most part.

However, free trade agreements pursue a very different political process, driven by global companies, and aimed primarily at investor interests.

Free trade agreements are bad for millions of people because they are not really about trade. More importantly, they limit the political process so investors are relieved of responsibility for protecting the environment OR recognizing labor rights or human rights, OR dealing with public health OR worrying about prudent financial regulation.

The overall result is downward pressure that weakens our political and social values, eroding civil society and public interest in all countries.

• Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize laureate economist, calls “free trade,” global governance without global government.
• Companies have filed over 500 challenges to public policies under trade agreements. In that respect, free trade agreements serve as a Corporate Bill of Rights.
• Richard Eskow calls “free trade” 21st century colonization where global corporations and global financial institutions displace national governments when setting policies.
• Free trade agreements are the global equivalent of Citizens United - amplifying the political influence of the wealthy.

My Congressman made a compelling argument for public interest, based on his personal experience as a doctor in Africa. Global pharmaceutical companies use patents to charge prices far above market levels. We expect a public good in return. This goes horribly wrong when millions of people with treatable diseases are denied access to life-saving medicine because trade agreements favor investors over people. This is exactly the kind of question we want elected officials to resolve. That’s why we have democracies.

Instead, under “free trade” agreements, a trade tribunal will make those policy decisions for us and for millions of vulnerable people around the world. These shadowy tribunals will enforce rules written into “free trade” agreements, which are all about investor rights, not about trade and not about public interests.

Show me language in free trade deals that protects the environment. Show me language for worker standards. Show me free trade provisions for human rights, public health.

Here’s an easy one – show me any action to stop currency manipulation, which distorts trade, subsidizes global companies who produce offshore, and makes a mockery of any textbook principles of legitimate trade.

We are negotiating two giant new “free trade” agreements, which are not about trade. They are about global governance. One is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. So far, 11 Pacific-rim countries will be included. The other huge deal is for Europe.

The defining characteristic of these agreements is that investor rights will have priority over public interest. They weaken Democracy. They are not really about trade.

If the TPP and the European deal are signed, we will have locked in this new 21st century colonialism for generations to come.

It was never really about trade.

Policies such as family and medical leave programs and earned sick days make it easier for fathers to bear their responsibilities.

On this Father’s Day, too many fathers have to choose between the family they love and the job they need. That’s a choice no one should ever have to make.

If we want Father’s Day to be more than a Hallmark holiday, we need to become a nation that truly honors fathers — by making sure their workplaces welcome their parenting role. Our social policies must evolve so that our espoused values — that we care about families — catch up to the new reality that women are in the workforce outside the home and men want to have rich lives outside of work. Working moms need help from their mates, working dads have a paternal need and desire to be with their children, and our children — the unseen stakeholders at work — need the love and attention of their parents.

The two of us have spent a lot of time helping working fathers find ways to have both fruitful work lives and fulfilling family lives. We’re both concerned about the statistics on how little time men spend with their new babies — usually a week or less. And we’re both parents of sons whom, we hope, will someday be able to be fathers who are as engaged as their spouses in their children’s lives, the glorious moments and the mundane ones.

Study after study of young men finds that the new generation of working fathers wants the kind of workplace options for which working mothers have been clamoring for decades. We know that many more men would be able to be the kind of involved fathers (and sons, and husbands) they want to be if they weren’t punished for it on the job.

We may seem like an odd pair — a management professor and a grassroots organizer — to be writing about the need for affordable family leave. But this is an issue that should garner support across the spectrum. This is an area where the moral imperative — the greater good — braids beautifully with the bottom line, as well as saving taxpayer dollars. We can all come together on making time with family available and affordable.

The truth is, only 11% of U.S. employees have paid family leave from their employers. The one public policy that covers time off to care for new children, the Family and Medical Leave Act, excludes two-fifths of the workforce.

On Father’s Day we urge more workplaces to step up to the plate to offer paid paternity leave, actively encourage men to take it, and offer flexible schedules. We’ve seen the results at many companies that know that real leaders have real lives and, paradoxically, when men and women are allowed to spend time on what matters most to them, they are able to be more effective and productive economically at work.

Too often those who manage these policies inform men about the leave they’re eligible for, but then directly or indirectly question their dedication and commitment to the firm if they actually use it – or expect them to be on call while caring for a newborn.

We also need public policy changes, to expand who’s eligible for FMLA and to make it affordable. Family and medical leave insurance funds like the ones established in California and New Jersey, where employees pay a small amount into an insurance pool and can then draw wages while they’re out on leave, would make a huge difference in the lives of parents and children.

Research shows us that a program like this increases men’s role in caregiving by making it possible for them to be involved without the family taking a big financial hit. In California, for example, fathers’ leave-taking for bonding with a new child rose 12% from 2011 to 2012.

Every child gets routine ailments like stomach flu and pink eye — ailments that schools and child care centers cannot accommodate, but are not covered by the FMLA. Right now, about 40% of workers in the private sector do not earn paid time off when they or a child is sick.

Instead of punishing working fathers, more employers should welcome and embrace men in their dual roles as financial providers and engaged presence in the home.

This Sunday as we celebrate all the wonderful and remarkable fathers across the nation, let us honor those fathers by expanding the ways in which public policy can support families across the board. Policies like family and medical leave insurance programs and earned sick days will make it easier for all fathers to shoulder not just the financial responsibilities of a family but also the day-to-day caring for loved ones when they need it.

We encourage lawmakers and employers to consider a gift fathers will never forget — affordable time to be good fathers.

Ellen Bravo is director of Family Values @ Work Consortium. Stewart D. Friedman is the practice professor of management and director of the Work/Life Integration Project at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Pasi Sahlberg

Dr. Pasi Sahlberg, the esteemed Finnish educator, scholar and speaker who visited Seattle this past November to discuss the applicability of Finland’s education system to Washington state, recently proposed an interesting idea in a column for The Washington Post: what if, in a perfect world, we simply supplanted Finnish educators – who are considered among the best in the world – to Indiana schools? Would Indiana all of a sudden become the world’s bastion of academic success?

The answer – unsurprisingly – is no.

While Dr. Sahlberg is quick to note the importance of adequate training for teachers, he condemns the notion that “poverty is only an excuse not to insist that all schools should reach higher standards.” In his mind, children should be elevated out of poverty by public policy, and “teachers alone, regardless of how effective they are, will not be able to overcome the challenges that poor children bring with them to school everyday.”

Understanding the burdens children bring to school – and go home to – is crucial in predicting academic outcomes. According to Dr. Sahlberg, 23 percent of U.S. children live in poverty, which is five times higher than that in Finland. Still, policymakers and “reformers” are consistently harping on increased accountability toward teachers, many of whom are struggling to teach underfed and distracted students.

In his column, Dr. Sahlberg lays out three main fallacies regarding education that many believe:

1. “The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.”
2. “The most important single factor in improving quality of education is teachers.”
3. “If any children had three or four great teachers in a row, they would soar academically, regardless of their racial or economic background, while those who have a sequence of weak teachers will fall further and further behind.”

Finland, because of the high importance (and consequently, salary and prestige) it places on teachers, has some of the world’s best educators.

But Dr. Sahlberg doesn’t stop there. He notes Indiana’s hypothetical educators in Finland would benefit from the freedom to teach without strict curriculum and test standardization, from strong leadership provided by principals with teaching experience, from a culture of collaboration, and from the low rate of poverty among children and families.

Even the world’s best teachers don’t instruct in a vacuum; instead, both forces inside and outside of the classroom are crucially important in determining whether a child will sink or swim. More importantly, the same factors will be determinants in deciding whether the system as a whole will be successful or fall further behind countries that better have their act together.

A school filled with the world’s most qualified teachers would still be at the mercy of the environment around them. Students need teachers, but they need a whole lot more, too.

By EOI Intern Bill Dow

The WA Senate is considering a tax break for clay pigeons. PHOTO/Jesrushton

The fourteen tax breaks proposed by the state Senate – despite a revenue shortfall and $1 billion funding deficit in K-12 education – beg the question: can we really afford this?

Some loopholes have their place, but as the state legislature tries to put together a budget that preserves essential state services with limited resources, every new tax break must be scrutinized. Even the most logical loopholes still mean funding siphoned away from education, health care, and critical infrastructure.

Take Senate Bill 5862, which would exempt mint growers and processors from sales and use taxes for the purchase of propane or natural gas, a loss of $300,000 from essential state services. The entire Republican caucus on the Senate Ways and Means committee voted in favor of this tax giveaway, plus Democrat Sen. Brian Hatfield.

Or Senate Bill 5866, which would extend the sales and use tax exemption for hog fuel for 11 more years. This loophole – which will cost the state $63 million over the next two years – was originally created to help the timber industry. But now a few multinational oil companies receive 98% of the subsidy – at a time when their profits are already sky high.

Then there’s Senate Bill 5622, which promises to create “thousands of jobs” in Washington’s airplane retrofitting industry. Maybe this “Boeing exemption” will help to restore some of the jobs being moved out of state?

There’s also Senate Bill 5831, which would provide a tax exemption for gun clubs to buy clay targets. The bill’s Republican sponsors want to exempt gun clubs from paying sales tax on clay pigeons. While the state would only lose approximately $29,000 over the next two years should the loophole be enacted, the bill is a convoluted giveaway to gun clubs.

All of these tax breaks have a purpose – some promote or discourage certain activities, while others simply provide preferential treatment to specific industries/organizations. But in a time of difficult budgeting, should more tax giveaways really be considered by the legislature? Washington’s tax code already has more than 500 exemptions, and when the budget gets squeezed, these importance of these loopholes are rarely weighed against critical budget items like public schools. Instead, state services – like public education – die a death of a thousand cuts.

In the short-run, some of the Senate’s proposed tax breaks may or may not encourage economic activity. But it’s important to remember that low taxation in itself doesn’t fuel economic growth. A favorable business climate requires more, including an educated workforce, critical infrastructure, and a healthy populous. Without these and other critical services offered by state government – all of which cost money – the business climate isn’t so favorable after all.

Tax breaks aren’t free – in this case, they come at the cost of providing high-quality, low-cost primary, secondary, and higher education. So what will it be: clay pigeons or textbooks? Hog fuel or health care?

By EOI Intern Bill Dow

Visit the State of Working Washington to compare expenditures on budget items as broad as Public Education or as specific as the Department of Fish and Wildlife. For example: since 2009, state parks have lost 83% of their funding. Higher education now accounts for just 8.38% of the state budget – a loss of more than $650 million since 2002:

Screenshot from the State of Working Washington

All charts and tables display both “real” (inflation-adjusted) budget numbers calculated by the Economic Opportunity Institute, alongside “nominal” (unadjusted) numbers provided by the Washington State Office of Fiscal Management.

More screenshots and examples from
http://stateofworkingwa.org/budget
:

A pie chart showing distribution of funds to Higher Education in 2010

A line chart showing Department of Fish and Wildlife expenditures from 2002 – 2013

An itemized list of major spending areas in the 2010 state budget

John Burbank, EOI Executive Director

The kids are all right. And so are their grandparents. Why? Because Social Security is there — for all of us. And we can make that promise even better by making sure we all pay the same tax rate for the same guarantee.

The Social Security Trustees report shows solid funding for the next 23 years. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan, one purpose of the 1982 Social Security reforms was to build up a trust fund to fund the retirement of the baby boomers. As they retired, the trust fund would eventually be spent down. Right now, the trust fund holds $2.7 trillion and is projected to grow to $2.9 trillion. After that, it will slowly shrink, as designed. And after us baby boomers fade away, Social Security will continue to be funded through payroll taxes, as it has for much of the past 75-plus years.

We need Social Security more than ever today. Half of private sector workers work for employers who don’t have any retirement plans. Only three percent of workers in the private sector have a defined benefit pension. A typical worker between the ages of 55 and 64 with a deferred contribution account has $40,000 in that account. That’s good for a monthly payment of about $280! So the only thing that soon-to-be retirees can depend upon, without question, is Social Security.

In Snohomish County, 101,000 people receive Social Security benefits — one out of seven people. Of those, seven out of 10 are retirees over age 65; 7,000 are children who have lost a working parent or live with their disabled parent or retired grandparents; and 15,000 are disabled workers.

Altogether Social Security pumps $1.5 billion a year into the Snohomish County economy. So if you want to hobble our economy and take away a job multiplier, just start cutting Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, that is exactly what President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner, most Republicans, and some Democrats, all buried inside the Washington D.C. beltway, are proposing to do.

They are trumpeting a new way of calculating inflation called the “Chained CPI.” It’s an apt name, because it chains retirees to the edge of poverty. Most of us know at least a few Social Security recipients. Their average benefit is $1,215 a month. That’s less than $15,000 a year. Two-thirds of all retirees depend on Social Security for more than half of their retirement income. Under the “Chained CPI” proposal, if you retire at age 65 and live to 90, you stand to lose over $20,000 in benefits.

Proponents tout the Chained CPI as a more accurate index of inflation. But the fact is, the existing index already underestimates necessary cost-of-living adjustments, because it assumes seniors are buying things like iPads and cars — for which prices are falling — while not giving enough weight to the cost of drugs, health care, and housing.

Taking an already inaccurate measure of inflation and reducing it further is both immoral and irresponsible. Instead of planning back-door cuts, our leaders should be working on increasing benefits. Luckily, there is an easy way to do this: it’s called “Scrap the Cap.”

Right now we pay Social Security taxes (FICA) on all wages up to $113,700. Anything above that amount is not taxed. As more income has migrated from middle class workers to the already wealthy, a lesser amount of national income is contributed to Social Security. A simple way to solve this problem is to just “scrap the cap” — that is, get rid of the tax cap on wages, so high-income executives pay the same Social Security tax rate as the typical clerk, barista, machinist, nurse, teacher, or sanitation worker. Then those additional contributions could be used to switch to the CPI-Elderly inflation index, which takes into account the spending of retirees on health care. Sen. Maria Cantwell has proposed this very idea.

Congressman Rick Larsen, for his part, has cosponsored legislation to oppose switching to the “chained CPI” and has pledged his support for “scrapping the cap.” Rep. Larsen understands the value of Social Security, and he doesn’t just proclaim this as a campaign slogan to get votes. With more people like him and Sen. Cantwell representing us in Congress, perhaps our kids’ kids will be all right, too.

NYC Public Advocate Bill De Blasio was a strong advocate of the NYC Paid Sick Days law.

The New York City Council – in spite of opposition from Mayor Michael Bloomberg – enacted the Earned Sick Time Act earlier this month, ensuring the majority of people working in New York City are able to earn paid sick days.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 45-3 thus overriding a mayoral veto, came as a result of a compromise between business and union leaders.

Once fully enacted, people working for businesses with 15 or more employees will be able to earn paid sick leave. Those working for smaller firms will be entitled to job-protected leave when they are sick, but it will not be paid. In addition, the bill exempts manufacturing businesses and “allows for the regulation to be postponed if the city’s economy worsens.”

Under the law, employees will accrue one hour of paid time off for every 30 hours worked, up to five days per year. It’s estimated the law it will cover 1 million workers, substantially improving their working conditions and quality of life. New York City – the nation’s largest metropolis – now joins Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C., and the state of Connecticut in requiring a minimum standard for paid sick leave.

New York union leaders, who were satisfied with the bill, said to The New York Times they “will continue to push for coverage of all size employers to create a level-playing field.” Seattle, for instance, has a lower employee threshold – five or more employees, with exceptions.

The bill passed with support from Democratic Council speaker Christine C. Quinn, who blocked a vote on the paid sick leave bill for more than a year despite a poll last year showing 83% of New Yorkers supported it. Quinn’s reversal is likely tied to her mayoral run, in which she will need the support of labor unions and workers who were miffed by her long-standing opposition to the bill. Among other challengers, Quinn will face Public Advocate Bill De Blasio in her mayoral primary, who has roundly criticized her opposition to the paid sick days bill.

The paid sick leave law will take effect in New York City next April.

By EOI Intern Bill Dow

Raymond Chaney of Boise, ID.
PHOTO: Glenn Oakley / for NBC News

For the financially insecure, payday lending is like a drug addiction – try it once or twice, get hooked, and suffer the consequences.

NBC News covered the payday loan trap and the dire effects it has on everyday Americans. Take 66-year-old Boise resident and veteran Raymond Chaney, who – after a few loans to help make ends meet – ended up owing four times as much as he had originally borrowed.

The 66-year-old veteran from Boise lives off of Social Security benefits, but borrowed from an Internet payday lender last November after his car broke down and didn’t have the $400 for repairs. When the 14-day loan came due, he couldn’t pay, so he renewed it several times.

Within months, the cash flow nightmare spun out of control. Chaney ended up taking out multiple loans from multiple sites, trying to stave off bank overdraft fees and pay his rent. By February, payday lenders — who had direct access to his checking account as part of the loan terms — took every cent of his Social Security payment, and he was kicked out of his apartment. He had borrowed nearly $3,000 and owed $12,000.

“I’m not dumb, but I did a dumb thing,” said Chaney, who is now homeless, living in a rescue mission in Boise.

Chaney’s story, while depressing, is not unique; many Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck have been trapped in a cycle of debt and poverty as a result of high-interest payday loans. Because these loans are often a last resort for consumers, if they ever get behind, they’re forced to take out even more – leading to larger problems.

The Center for Responsible Lending has a list of stories from payday lending victims who have also experienced disaster. Here are a few:

Sandy: Sandy Hudson’s first payday loan was for $100, with an $18 fee. She worked down the street from the payday shop, and since she was short on cash, she called to see what she needed to get a loan … Sandy got caught up in the payday lending trap, taking out multiple loans to pay the fees on each one as they became due. At one point, she was paying $300 every two weeks for four different loans. Over a six month period, this added up to $3600, but she was in the trap much longer … She filed for bankruptcy.

Mary: With retirement and disability income, Mary Hamilton, a 62-year-old African-American mother and grandmother brings in about $1000 per month. She took out her first payday loan because she needed “a little extra” money to go out of town. Like many borrowers, she had to take out a second payday loan to pay off the first. She now has loans with four payday lenders… The fees Mary has to pay to keep from defaulting on her payday loans add up to over 40 percent of her monthly income.

A quick Google search of payday lending horror stories is a simple reminder of the predatory nature of the industry. While some are able to take out a payday loan or two just to get their finances back on track, many get hooked – needing the next another loan to recover from the last. As legislators both in our state and nationwide take a closer look at the payday loan industry, they should consider not only the consequences it has to the economy as a whole, but its effect on peoples’ lives.

By EOI Intern Bill Dow

Slower health care cost growth has improved Medicare’s financial outlook, extending the program’s trust fund to last until 2026, two years later than forecast last year.

As for Social Security, the report was largely unchanged from last year. The Social Security Trust Fund continues to grow – now topping $2.8 billion – and is expected to reach $3 billion before the end of the decade. The Trust Fund is still predicted to be exhausted in 2033, at which point Social Security will be able to pay 3/4 of scheduled benefits.

However, as we’ve written before, there a few simple tweaks that will ensure this doesn’t happen – and they’re supported by 71% of Americans. One of those tweaks, called “Scrap the Cap,” is so popular we created a rap video about it.

To get the straight facts on Social Security for 2013, read our latest fact sheet >