March 12, 2020
Dear Member of Congress:
The Strengthen Social Security Coalition (SSSC) is a broad-based alliance of over 350 nationaland statewide organizations, including, among many others, women’s, labor, aging, disability,veterans, and civil rights groups representing over 50 million Americans. The SSSC is gratefulthat members of Congress have stood firm in protecting Social Security by rejecting the Trump
Administration proposal to slash that vital program’s dedicated revenue. We urge you to continue
to stand strong in your opposition to that proposal.
We strongly support substantial economic relief for America’s workers during this moment ofcrisis, but there are much more targeted and fairer proposals that provide greater economic
stimulus and place no administrative burden on employers. They include the excellent proposals
put forward by House Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Schumer in their package. (See below.)
Their impact on different groups of workers is compared to the impact of the Trump
Administration proposal in the table below. Importantly, none of those other proposals undermine
the economic security of America’s working families by cutting their federal insurance
contributions (“FICA”) -- the premiums that they pay to insure their wages against loss in the eventof old age, disability, or death.
The only reason to support a FICA cut over those other, better proposals is to undermine SocialSecurity. Even if the Trump proposal were to replace Social Security’s dedicated revenue withdeficit-funded general revenue, it would undermine this vital program, setting the stage for future
demands to cut Social Security. Not replacing the revenue would greatly increase Social Security’s
projected shortfall, which is already being used by Social Security’s opponents as an excuse to cut
its modest but vital benefits. Replacing it, on the other hand, would lend credence to the lie that
Social Security needs to be cut for deficit reasons. (Social Security can only pay benefits if its
dedicated revenue is sufficient to cover all the costs of those benefits and their related
administrative expenses. It has no borrowing authority. Consequently, Social Security does notand, by law, cannot add a penny to the deficit.)
In 2009, faced with the Great Recession, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted a muchsuperior provision, the Making Work Pay Tax Credit. After the 2010 election, though, when theDemocrats lost control of the House of Representatives, the Republican leadership refused toextend the tax credit, despite the need for continued stimulus. The leadership instead insisted on
cutting the Social Security contribution rate by two percentage points on both employers andemployees.

We opposed it at the time, but did not prevail in our opposition. We are determined to keep
Congressional supporters of Social Security from making that same mistake today. Fortunately,
the House will vote on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which is an excellent list ofsteps we should take to combat the coronavirus. Their plan includes paid sick leave, enhanced
unemployment insurance, free coronavirus testing, and treatment for all.
Our government should swiftly enact these measures, not undermine Social Security by slashingits dedicated revenue. Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,

Nancy J. AltmanChairOne Time Cash Payment vs. Making Work Pay Tax Credit vs. 2% FICA CutIncome Level or
Occupation of Worker

One Time Payment
Mailed Directly toanyone earning lessthan $100,000 1“Making Work Pay"
Tax Credit forIndividuals,Doubled in Size($120 billion cost in2011 dollars)

2% Social Security
Cut($120 billion costin 2011 dollars)

President Trump, Members ofCongress$0$0$2,740CEOs of Wall Street banks andFortune 500 Companies$0$0$2,740

Minimum Wage Earner(earnings of $15,080)

$1200

$800

$302

Middle Income Earner(earnings of $40,000)

$1200

$800

$800

“Maximum” Earner(earnings of $137,700 or more)$600$0$2,740

Millions of State & Local
Workers, and Thousands ofFederal Workers 2

$1200

$800

$0

The payment should be structured to gradually phase out at higher income levels.
More than 6 million federal, state and local government employees (about 600,000 federal workers, hired before
January 1, 1984, and about 5.7 million state and local workers) were not covered by Social Security and thus did
not receive a tax cut under the Social Security “holiday.”12