An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama Throws Crumbs To Seniors

Biting the hand that feeds me, I think it is a bad idea that President Barack Obama is urging Congress to kick in an extra one-lump $250 to each of the 57 million seniors, veterans and people with disabilities because they will not receive cost-of-living increases in 2010 from Social Security benefits.

It’s not that I prefer to go without. If Congress goes along with the president, and key leaders say they like the idea, I would prefer it be paid in 12 monthly $20.83 increments added to the average gross monthly stipend of $1,261.

Recipients received a $250 bonus in 2009 as part of the $787 billion stimulus package and those such as me on fixed incomes either saved it, paid off a few bills, spoiled the grandkids or bought personal or household items.

The Social Security Administration announced Thursday there would be no cost of living increase because of zero inflation this past year. That hasn’t happened since 1975. The good news is that by law benefits cannot be reduced which means Medicare premiums will remain at $96 which are deducted from most Social Security beneficiaries.

As I see it, inflation will occur during 2010 in food, health insurance shares of cost, gasoline and other economic sectors that hit those on fixed incomes the hardest. An extra $20 a month can be better managed to cover some of those increases than a lump sum of $250.

Just as important is the $13 billion cost of Obama’s plan which the White House said had no idea where the money would come from. That means printing money which in itself is an inflationary process. That in turn increases our national debt and makes the government’s borrowing powers that much more expensive.

The timing of the president’s proposal makes the cynic in me think he’s throwing crumbs at seniors in hopes they will support his healthcare reform legislation. One cost-cutting measure being proposed is a so-called $500 billion in savings in the form of waste and fraud in Medicare. Many seniors and their advocates lobbying Congress believe those cuts will remove benefits they now receive under Medicare.

White House spokesmen said the $250 plan in no way signals the administration is paving the way for a second massive economic stimulus.

“Even as we seek to bring about recovery, we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession,” Obama said in a statement. He noted that countless seniors had seen their retirement accounts and home values shrink during the economic slump.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security in the House, both said they support the plan.

But Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) objected. “I think it would be inappropriate,” he said. “The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living.”

  • DLS
    Crumbs? It's not simply buying the votes of those whose votes are easily and cheaply bought, who have a bloated entitlement mentality. It's a bribe, and a likely attempt at distraction, reducing concern by the seniors about the robbing of Medicare (and of the providers, not only the beneficiaries, in effect) to "pay" partially for health care "reform" for everyone else. A simple vote-buying Santa Claus act is the least of it.
  • DLS
    The cynic in you is thinking wisely, in other words.

    Don't be surprised if the blabbered rationalization for this is, ironically, to help seniors meet special (higher) health care expenses (and even tell them, "so they should support the reform effort")!
  • jkremmers
    DLS -- Years ago I established my price for selling out. Bidding begins at $1 million tax free. -- Jer
  • dduck12
    Gee, didn't Bush also try to stimulate buying with a check a while back? Point being, all these politicos troll for votes. It seems, almost like, Obama is already on the campaign trail. Too bad, I'd like to see him concentrate on doing substantive things instead of being all over the place.
  • Coming soon......inflation, inflation, inflation!

    -Nikki-
  • Zzzzz
    I object, too. Seniors already have a big slice of the taxpayer pie. They don't need any more given to them.
  • keelaay
    Bad policy through and through. Social Security is rightly indexed to inflation. No inflation, no increase. Period. The Democrats are as beholden to the AARP as the Republicans are to the NRA.
  • Leonidas
    Yup an obvious bribe, something along the line of "Here is some money Granny now go home watch Matlock and shut up."
  • This post is very personal. I feel for you Mr. Remmers.

    Since 9/11, my immigration sensitive employment has suffered pay freezes, even though my job performance was above and beyond. Since 9/11, everyone I work with has had to deal with not getting a COLA increase. This despite the fact that we bring in a huge amount of dollars to our local economy through tuition, rentals, eating, living: all money from outside the U.S.

    You don't know what it has been like for the last eight years. You got yours and screw the rest of us working types. You've done all of your work -- you can't even be bothered to look up easily accessible source material on a post that you probably got paid for.

    You have no credibility with me. Your posts are self centered and basically nonsense.

    The reason that the COLA doesn't yield an increase? The drop in oil prices. Does your post say anything about that? No.

    Instead, you push the idea that inflation is on the way.

    I'm surprised you didn't end your post with "BUY GOLD!"
  • Davebo
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    "The timing of the president’s proposal makes the cynic in me think he’s throwing crumbs at seniors in hopes they will support his healthcare reform legislation"

    Considering millions of Americans on a meager fixed income, as perhaps the last commenter is, desperately trying to stay afloat, and looking for whatever financial assistance he or she can get, no matter how small, to literally pay for his or her next meal or help pay the rent, I think this is a very cynical way of looking at this $250 lifesaver. Just my opinion.
  • That's feeble.

    directed at : "davebo"
  • Some of us have been working for a pay raise for years. That Mr. Remmers doesn't get his COLA (when working people haven't for years) and is whining about it . . .

    Well I will let you place a value on his post.
  • dduck12
    If only they could figure out a way to direct money to the most needy and not everyone. This proposal makes it look like it is being done for strictly political purposes. Who knows the truth? I do think you are being a little hard on Mr. Remmers whose post attempted to point to possible political hypocrisy. (Now you can holler at me.)
    I wish you well.
  • DLS
    "Years ago I established my price for selling out. Bidding begins at $1 million tax free."

    That's still cheap, sir, compared to votes of Congress members, it seems, these days.

    (e.g., bank bailout and "Sweetners")
  • DLS
    "Social Security is rightly indexed to inflation. No inflation, no increase. Period."

    As it should be -- but at least these programs aren't subject to benefit reductions when there is deflation.

    That is perfectly justified, and in fact, as it should be. As is a reform such as re-indexing for longevity.
  • jkremmers
    Just to set the record straight, I do not get paid for voicing my opinions one way or another. I am a senior whose sole source of income is payback from what I contributed to the Social Security system. If you downloaded the link to my post some of the questions in the comment section here were addressed. Certainly, advocates for seniors have lobbied Congress and Obama for help beyond the COLA rules. I don't necessarily agree nor am I whining that they should. My point of the post is the amount is crumbs, a gesture, a political prestidigitation to be paid for from funds we did not contribute towards our retirement pension. For those naysayers who claim SS is an entitlement, I say you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You certainly will not view it that way when you turn 65. If you do, return it to the SS Administration so others can enjoy the fruits of your labor. -- Jer
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    " For those naysayers who claim SS is an entitlement, I say you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You certainly will not view it that way when you turn 65. If you do, return it to the SS Administration so others can enjoy the fruits of your labor. --"

    I would add to this, Jerry, that those who similarily feel Medicare is another ill-conceived, poltically motivated (by those horrible lib Dems), government give-away program, should immediately disenroll from the prpogram (or vow never to take a penny from it) and pay a full one hundred percent of those medical bills and/or get their own at-times-prohibitively-priced health insurance.

  • DLS
    "For those naysayers who claim SS is an entitlement, I say you don't know what the hell you're talking about."

    I say it is an entitlement, for that's what it is -- an entitlement. Not only is it a legal entitlement and a federal entitlement (in fact, welfare) program, but it is viewed as an entitlement, particularly by many of the beneficiaries and fans of the program and related programs.

    The earth is round. There is no "naysaying" [sic].

    Just wait 15-25 years when things fall apart. It already is unsustainable as it exists currently.
  • dduck12
    As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted. For example in the United States of America, social security is an entitlement program.[2]
  • Mr. Remmers, let me ask you a question. Should you live long enough to empty your SS account, will you then get zero?

    See, there is something to this discussion. I agree that $250 is not much -- for people who have the means to live fairly well, even without their SS. But for people who get minimal reimbursement, then that $250 could help quite a bit.

    As far as entitlement is concerned -- it is an entitlement, for those who only pay into the system on less than 100% of their income. The vast majority of us pay SS on 100% of our income. Those that make over what, $95K?, only pay up to that point, and then no more. Changing that one rule, and making SS means based, would fund SS forever.
  • DLS
    "As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted. "

    Yes, a legal right granted.

    I understand. This is why I also said it was "an entitlement program." However, it also is true (what I wrote was not mere equivocation) that people view it as an "entitlement" in the common way the word is used, as well as describing the mentality (of expectations and demands, to use other words) of many of the recipients (being "hooked" like "addicts" is also appropriate, but is a separate thing to introduce).

    The future remains as anyone who is awake can predict: the program's unsustainability will force some unpleasant truth-facing and decision making, eventually. (The Democrats, who "own" this program as well as Medicare, were the most stupid people possible when insisting on doing nothing at all on behalf of Social Security when they had the chance during the Bush years. They chose mindless obstruction and demagoguery, more mindless than normal, and did absolutely nothing. "It will be more valuable later if we leave it alone." -- Hinchey, D-NY) The future will involve unpleasant new taxes and unpleasant cost controls that will reduce benefit growth or even involve some true benefit reductions (which is not true for overdue things like raising the retirement age into the seventies where it has belonged for years, for example). The future will involve a seeking of "equilibrium" of howling between taxpayers and beneficiaries as both groups feel "pain" or unpleasantness. (It can't be solely benefit reductions, because many Baby Boomers will rely on Social Security eventually, and though it's the opposite of the real world, there actually may be a future demand for increases in benefits and beneficiaries tax-paid standards of living, if they retain typical Boomer character.)
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC