“We’re going to have a major storm coming in our country with all these folks that can’t take care of themselves,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-New York, said Thursday at the Employee Benefit Research Institute policy forum in Washington, D.C.
When Suozzi was growing up, all four of his grandparents lived with his family, who took care of them.
That experience inspired Suozzi’s parents to buy long-term care insurance. Both of his parents lived into their 90s and were able to stay at home, thanks to those policies, he said.
Now, that same insurance coverage is out of reach for many Americans.
“People can’t afford long-term care insurance anymore,” Suozzi said. “The insurance companies, when they made a bet on this the first time around, they lost a lot of money because they didn’t take into account that a lot of people live much longer than their actuarial tables.”
Meanwhile, nursing homes and Medicaid are not equipped to handle the issue, he said.
To address that, Suozzi said he plans to reintroduce a bill called the Well-Being Insurance for Seniors to be at Home, or WISH, Act. The proposal calls for the federal government to create a fund for catastrophic long-term care to help older Americans age at home.
Suozzi last introduced the bill in 2021. That version of the proposal called for long-term care benefits to be available to individuals who have reached retirement age and who are disabled, have severe cognitive impairment or who are unable to perform at least two activities of daily living.
Like Social Security and Medicare, Americans would also need to contribute to the program through a payroll tax to receive the benefits.
The amount of benefits received would be around $3,600 to $4,000 per month, Suozzi said on Thursday. Per the 2021 proposal, that is based on the median cost paid personal assistance for six hours per day.
Waiting periods for care would be based on income, with longer delays for coverage for higher income individuals.
A ‘tough sell’ to raise taxes
Admittedly, the proposal could face hurdles to gaining support.
“The challenge is nobody wants to raise taxes for anything,” Suozzi said on Thursday.
It is a “tough sell” to tell people that there’s a mandatory tax for long-term care, particularly since not everyone will need those benefits, Ben Veghte, director of the WA Cares Fund, said Thursday during a separate long-term care discussion at the EBRI conference.
The WA Cares Fund is a public long-term care insurance program provided to workers in the state of Washington. It is funded by a 0.58% tax on employee’s gross wages.
An estimated 7 in 10 people will need long-term care in their lifetimes, according to Veghte. But that often prompts people to wonder about the other 3 in 10, and why those people have to pay taxes for benefits they may never receive.
In the next decade, at least two or three states will attempt to create long-term care programs like Washington’s, Veghte said. Among the states exploring the idea include California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, he said.
Once that happens, the private insurance industry will likely start to offer supplemental products, Veghte said.
“It’s going to take all of us to address the costs associated with long term care and the crisis ahead of us,” Veghte said. “It’s private industry, it’s government, it’s employers, it’s family caregivers, because we know the cost is more than just financial.”
A person holds a sign during a protest against cuts made by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to the Social Security Administration, in White Plains, New York, U.S., March 22, 2025.
Nathan Layne | Reuters
The Trump administration’s appeal of a temporary restraining order blocking the so-called Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive personal Social Security Administration data has been dismissed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Tuesday dismissed the government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case will proceed in the district court. A motion for a preliminary injunction will be filed later this week, according to national legal organization Democracy Forward.
The temporary restraining order was issued on March 20 by federal Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander and blocks DOGE and related agents and employees from accessing agency systems that contain personally identifiable information.
That includes information such as Social Security numbers, medical provider information and treatment records, employer and employee payment records, employee earnings, addresses, bank records, and tax information.
DOGE team members were also ordered to delete all nonanonymized personally identifiable information in their possession.
The plaintiffs include unions and retiree advocacy groups, namely the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Alliance for Retired Americans and the American Federation of Teachers.
“We are pleased the 4th Circuit agreed to let this important case continue in district court,” Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a written statement. “Every American retiree must be able to trust that the Social Security Administration will protect their most sensitive and personal data from unwarranted disclosure.”
The Trump administration’s appeal ignored standard legal procedure, according to Democracy Forward. The administration’s efforts to halt the enforcement of the temporary restraining order have also been denied.
“The president will continue to seek all legal remedies available to ensure the will of the American people is executed,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said via email.
The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request from CNBC for comment.
Immediately after the March 20 temporary restraining order was put in place, Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek said in press interviews that he may have to shut down the agency since it “applies to almost all SSA employees.”
Dudek was admonished by Hollander, who called that assertion “inaccurate” and said the court order “expressly applies only to SSA employees working on the DOGE agenda.”
Dudek then said that the “clarifying guidance” issued by the court meant he would not shut down the agency. “SSA employees and their work will continue under the [temporary restraining order],” Dudek said in a March 21 statement.
Many Americans are paying a hefty price for their credit card debt.
As a primary source of unsecured borrowing, 60% of credit cardholders carry debt from month to month, according to a new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
At the same time, credit card interest rates are “very high,” averaging 23% annually in 2023, the New York Fed found, also making credit cards one of the most expensive ways to borrow money.
“With the vast majority of the American public using credit cards for their purchases, the interest rate that is attached to these products is significant,” said Erica Sandberg, consumer finance expert at CardRates.com. “The more a debt costs, the more stress this puts on an already tight budget.”
Most credit cards have a variable rate, which means there’s a direct connection to the Federal Reserve’s benchmark. And yet, credit card lenders set annual percentage rates well above the central bank’s key borrowing rate, currently targeted in a range between 4.25% to 4.5%, where it has been since December.
Following the Federal Reserve’s rate hike in 2022 and 2023, the average credit card rate rose from 16.34% to more than 20% today — a significant increase fueled by the Fed’s actions to combat inflation.
“Card issuers have determined what the market will bear and are comfortable within this range of interest rates,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.
APRs will come down as the central bank reduces rates, but they will still only ease off extremely high levels. With just a few potential quarter-point cuts on deck, APRs aren’t likely to fall much, according to Schulz.
Despite the steep cost, consumers often turn to credit cards, in part because they are more accessible than other types of loans, Schulz said.
In fact, credit cards are the No. 1 source of unsecured borrowing and Americans’ credit card tab continues to creep higher. In the last year, credit card debt rose to a record $1.21 trillion.
Because credit card lending is unsecured, it is also banks’ riskiest type of lending.
“Lenders adjust interest rates for two primary reasons: cost and risk,” CardRates’ Sandberg said.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s research shows that credit card charge-offs averaged 3.96% of total balances between 2010 and 2023. That compares to only 0.46% and 0.43% for business loans and residential mortgages, respectively.
As a result, roughly 53% of banks’ annual default losses were due to credit card lending, according to the NY Fed research.
“When you offer a product to everyone you are assuming an awful lot of risk,” Schulz said.
Further, “when times get tough they get tough for most everybody,” he added. “That makes it much more challenging for card issuers.”
The best way to pay off debt
The best move for those struggling to pay down revolving credit card debt is to consolidate with a 0% balance transfer card, experts suggest.
“There is enormous competition in the credit card market,” Sandberg said. Because lenders are constantly trying to capture new cardholders, those 0% balance transfer credit card offers are still widely available.
Cards offering 12, 15 or even 24 months with no interest on transferred balances “are basically the best tool in your toolbelt when it comes to knocking down credit card debt,” Schulz said. “Not accruing interest for two years on a balance is pretty hard to argue with.”
Andrew Ross Sorkin speaks with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink during the New York Times DealBook Summit in the Appel Room at the Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City on Nov. 30, 2022.
In a new letter to investors, Fink writes the traditional allocation comprised of 60% stocks and 40% bonds that dates back to the 1950s “may no longer fully represent true diversification.”
“The future standard portfolio may look more like 50/30/20 — stocks, bonds and private assets like real estate, infrastructure and private credit.” Fink writes.
Most professional investors love to talk their book, and Fink is no exception. BlackRock has pursued several recent acquisitions — Global Infrastructure Partners, Preqin and HPS Investment Partners — with the goal of helping to increase investors’ access to private markets.
The effort to make it easier to incorporate both public and private investments in a portfolio is analogous to index versus active investments in 2009, Fink said.
Those investment strategies that were then considered separately can now be blended easily at a low cost.
Fink hopes the same will eventually be said for public and private markets.
Yet shopping for private investments now can feel “a bit like buying a house in an unfamiliar neighborhood before Zillow existed, where finding accurate prices was difficult or impossible,” Fink writes.
60/40 portfolio still a ‘great starting point’
After both stocks and bonds saw declines in 2022, some analysts declared the 60/40 portfolio strategy dead. In 2024, however, such a balanced portfolio would have provided a return of about 14%.
“If you want to keep things very simple, the 60/40 portfolio or a target date fund is a great starting point,” said Amy Arnott, portfolio strategist at Morningstar.
If you’re willing to add more complexity, you could consider smaller positions in other asset classes like commodities, private equity or private debt, she said.
However, a 20% allocation in private assets is on the aggressive side, Arnott said.
The total value of private assets globally is about $14.3 trillion, while the public markets are worth about $247 trillion, she said.
For investors who want to keep their asset allocations in line with the market value of various asset classes, that would imply a weighting of about 6% instead of 20%, Arnott said.
Yet a 50/30/20 portfolio is a lot closer to how institutional investors have been allocating their portfolios for years, said Michael Rosen, chief investment officer at Angeles Investments.
The 60/40 portfolio, which Rosen previously said reached its “expiration date,” hasn’t been used by his firm’s endowment and foundation clients for decades.
There’s a key reason why. Institutional investors need to guarantee a specific return, also while paying for expenses and beating inflation, Rosen said.
While a 50/30/20 allocation may help deliver “truly outsized returns” to the mass retail market, there’s also a “lot of baggage” that comes with that strategy, Rosen said.
There’s a lack of liquidity, which means those holdings aren’t as easily converted to cash, Rosen said.
What’s more, there’s generally a lack of transparency and significantly higher fees, he said.
Prospective investors should be prepared to commit for 10 years to private investments, Arnott said.
And they also need to be aware that measurement issues with asset classes like private equity means past performance data may not be as reliable, she said.
For the average person, the most likely path toward tapping into private equity will be part of a 401(k) plan, Arnott said. So far, not a lot of companies have added private equity to their 401(k) offerings, but that could change, she said.
“We will probably see more plan sponsors adding private equity options to their lineups going forward,” Arnott said.