max richtman

Senior turnout will play a huge role in November's elections which means Democrats must continue to say what they mean, and mean what they say in a full-throated defense against attacks to America's most effective health and retirement security programs.
As a seniors’ advocate who’s worked on aging policy issues for decades, one of the most common questions I hear during campaign
It's certainly not news that American women continue to earn less than men for the same work, typically 79 cents on the dollar. But what's less understood is the devastating impact those lost wages have over time.
The 2016 elections will be a defining moment for whether America's retirement safety net stays or goes. It's critical that American voters of all ages demand that candidates for president and Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- are held accountable for policies which will impact generations of American families.
The American people must not be distracted by the ongoing political show to the point that they miss the real action occurring behind the scenes.
As our nation marks the 50th anniversary of Medicare in 2015, the time is now to expand the Medicare program starting with coverage of hearing aids.
Current and future Democratic lawmakers now have an opportunity to do the right thing by joining the growing Boost Social Security movement and supporting legislation which would improve benefits while also strengthening the program's long-term outlook.
Congress' new leadership may want to give former President George Bush a call. Not so many years ago, he believed his "voter mandate" cleared the way to privatize Social Security -- cutting benefits and putting workers' guaranteed benefits at risk on Wall Street. That didn't turn out so well for the President.
Given the economy's slow rebound, is this really their plan to strengthen America? Is there any community which can afford to lose millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs over the next decade?
Our nation faces an impending retirement crisis yet rather than address that issue head-on; Washington is instead proposing cuts to the only guaranteed source of income for many retirees, Social Security. It simply makes no sense -- unless your true goal is austerity not accuracy.
President Obama's proposal cutting Social Security benefits for both current and future retirees has once again become a deficit debate bargaining chip. However, as a consolation, the president promises he won't "slash" benefits. Mr. President, please define "slash."
Too many in Washington seem obsessed with using Social Security's revenues as the solution for a whole host of fiscal problems that have nothing to do with the Social Security program.
This election will likely determine the future of America's most successful anti-poverty and retirement security programs. Few American families will remain untouched by the decisions the next president and Congress will soon make.
It's hard to understand why a group representing millions of seniors, which expresses a viewpoint held by the vast majority of Americans of all ages, would face character assassination in the opinion pages of the Washington Post.
D.C.'s "fiscal hawks" tell the average American that we can't afford to keep our promises of income security for the middle class while signing pledges promising protection for tax loopholes for corporations collecting billions in profits.