You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Treating the Elderly Like Spoiled Brats
2009-10-19
When inflation hits, every dollar in your bank account is worth less each day. Deflation is just the opposite: You put your feet up and watch your money grow in value. The latter is what is happening now to America's seniors. And politicians think they should not have to stand for it.

The other day, the federal government announced that for the first time since cost-of-living adjustments were begun in 1975, Social Security recipients will not get an annual raise in their monthly checks. This decision is not the result of a fit of fiscal austerity or a sadistic desire to punish old people. There won't be a raise to offset inflation for the simple reason that there has been no inflation to offset.

Last year, seniors got a big raise because consumer prices had jumped 5.8 percent in one year. In the following 12 months, though, the Consumer Price Index has dropped by 2.1 percent. So in the coming year, Social Security payments will stay the same and be worth more than they used to be.

But so what? Groups representing the elderly, like AARP, have come to regard the annual raise as a sacred birthright in good times as well as bad, and few in Washington want to argue with them. President Obama has proposed giving every Social Security recipient a tax-free $250 bonus in lieu of a cost-of-living adjustment. Congressional Democrats are all for it, and the Republican leadership sounds agreeable.

A consensus like that happens only when someone comes up with a simple, appealing and thoroughly horrendous idea. As it is, the cost-of-living rules are a great deal for seniors. Retirees get more money when prices rise, but they don't have to give any of it back when prices fall. The ratchet works only in their favor.

It's not easy to make a case for enriching seniors at a time when working-age Americans are suffering, but Obama and his allies are trying. The president insisted that "we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession."

Who is he kidding? His policy would help those with the most protection. The people hit hardest by the recession are those who have seen their earnings vanish along with their jobs. Social Security recipients are assured of a stable stream of income even when companies are cutting payroll with a chainsaw.

Obama also claimed the help is essential because "countless seniors and others have seen their retirement accounts and home values decline as a result of this economic crisis." What's his excuse for singling out seniors? Most everyone with a house or a 401(k) has gotten whacked, and the government can't afford to help them all.

What no one mentions is that Social Security beneficiaries already got a bonus in the original $787 billion stimulus package, which provided them with payments of $250 apiece. That's the rough equivalent of a 2 percent COLA. If the president gets his way, they will get a total of 4 percent. That, in combination with the drop in the CPI, means they'll have about 6 percent more in inflation-adjusted dollars this year than last. Not many other Americans can say that.

The final pretext is that the payouts will provide "a boost to our economy," in the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- presumably because they will spur spending. Trouble is, giving people money doesn't mean they will head to Walmart. When the Bush administration sent out rebates, most of the cash apparently went to pay off debt or bolster savings, neither of which spurs the production of goods and services.
On the other hand, the mass paying down of debt and adding to savings probably softened the subsequent crash by a like amount. Not a bad thing, under the circumstances.
Posted by:Fred

#25  *hugs* NS
Posted by: Frank G   2009-10-19 21:05  

#24  D P Moynahan was the only person in the entire government who understood SS and all of its machinations completely

Interesting. I'm curious, though, and wonder if he rejected his own check. I know of only one politician who has done just that - and he's a Republican.
Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007   2009-10-19 20:35  

#23  50? Really? I'd always thought of you as 17.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-10-19 20:28  

#22  I'm 50, so older than HF and CB, but I have the wisdom and self restraint of a 17 yr old, so that counts for sumpthin
Posted by: Frank G   2009-10-19 20:02  

#21  I'm old enough to remember when there was no COLA for SocSec and there was a debate in congress each year about how much to increase payments. Part of the argument for the COLA was to get the whores out from under the responsibility for the deficit and to keep the increases under control. But back then some elderly were eating dog food.

While I suspect the dog food stories were overly dramatic, there was much poverty amongst the elderly. Those times are returning. The socialized medicine Obama is installing will be used to gut Medicare more each year. I fully anticipate means testing for SocSec and for the floor to increase at COLA + 1. Within 25 years, there will be stories about the elderly eating dog food, but they'll just be boomers and the war will only be recently over, so no one will really care.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-10-19 19:49  

#20  Hellfish & Cornsilk,
Congratulations on being so precocious - it typically takes longer to accumulate the knowledge and wisdom to properly appreciate Rantburg.
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-10-19 19:22  

#19  I think that there has to be a combination of means testing, an increase in the eligible age and a new much more strict COLA mechanism if SS is going to survive in any form.
Posted by: Remoteman   2009-10-19 19:09  

#18  #6 I'm 67/retired...Obama can take his $250 idea and stuff it...It fixes NOTHING...
Posted by crazyhorse 2009-10-19


He can 'stuff' my $250. as well. That's a whopping $500. up his worthless a**.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-10-19 18:10  

#17  Daniel Patrick Moynahan, who was, and may God have mercy on his soul, the only Democrat I ever trusted, once stated right after he retired from the Senate, that the SS system could be fixed by cutting the tie to the CPI and using some other more realistic indicator as a COLA. He admitted that the SS was a wreck due to the faulty indicators that were being used to increase benefits.
D P Moynahan was the only person in the entire government who understood SS and all of its machinations completely and when he retired and died, there is no one left to publically voice a viable and logical critique of the system.
There has been no one since who can talk knowledgibly about it.
Posted by: James Carville   2009-10-19 17:05  

#16  When the U.S. catches cold, the rest of the world gets Swine Flu, Mitch. As far as I can tell, we won't even know where the bottom is until the real estate derivatives unwind on the one hand, and the Democrats stop passing economy-changing bills on the other (health care, cap & trade, etc.).
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-19 15:49  

#15  Rampant inflation will soon solve your delima.
Posted by: bman   2009-10-19 15:36  

#14  What I don't understand is that we've got disinflation coupled with a devaluing dollar. How the hell does that happen? Is it that every other currency is just deflating faster than us?

I was never that good at math, but I've got the feeling I'm inverting a value somewhere.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-10-19 15:15  

#13  Nope, Hellfish, but not by much (42).
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-10-19 15:08  

#12  At some point the Federal government should make it legal for those over 65 (or whatever) to legally do drugs (sold by the Feds of course). The old hippies would then spend their savings and help the budget issues while at the same time drastically cutting their own lives short and solving a number of health care issues.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2009-10-19 13:58  

#11  Am I the youngest person here? I'm 46.
Posted by: Hellfish   2009-10-19 13:54  

#10  I assume that means testing is why I won't get anything, Lumpy Elmoluck5091. It's an easy, fairly invisible step. Easier than raising the retirement age or reducing benefits, both of which will no doubt happen eventually (sorry, borgboy), and probably sooner rather than later, given that this administration is determined to send the national debt to 80% of GDP.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-19 13:10  

#9  I just hope all of you who are retired or nearing retirement have your 401k and other investments tied up in CDs, money market funds and other low-risk categories, not highly volatile instruments like stocks! A stock-heavy portfolio is only good when you're younger and your investments have time to recover from downtimes before you need the funds.
Posted by: Dar   2009-10-19 13:02  

#8  I know this is not a popular solution, as no one likes taxes, but it only seems logical these days: means testing. Just because millionaires and billionaires have paid into the system (modestly, only up to $104,000 income is taxable)they shouldn't get a monthly check. Many people live on only their SS check, never having made enough to stash away much, and putting Grandma out on the street if the kids aren't willing or able to take her in, isn't an acceptable alternative. They could also raise the limit on taxable income so those making good salaries subsidize the elderly more. We need the safety net but the same DC party assh*les have raided the trustfund to balance the Clinton budget and even LBJ used it to pay for Viet Nam. They just got caught in the market crash.
Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091   2009-10-19 12:52  

#7  I'd be happy if they'd just pay me back for all the money they've been sucking out of my paycheck all these years...with interest if you don't mind.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-10-19 12:08  

#6  I'm 67/retired...Obama can take his $250 idea and stuff it...It fixes NOTHING...
Posted by: crazyhorse   2009-10-19 11:30  

#5  I've been encouraging the various daughters, trailing and otherwise, to have at least four children apiece, so my grandchildren's tax burden is divided into smaller fractions. I know I'm not likely to get anything anyway -- I'm 48 -- but the tax burden on the young is only going to get worse. If I recall correctly, Medicare/Medicaid are already bankrupt, and Social Security will cross that line in a few years, barring painful changes.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-19 09:35  

#4  I've always had a problem with cost of living increases as they are divorced from the source from which the funding comes. If the average worker is not getting a COLA, his/her taxes [either directly or indirectly by inflating the monetary supply] have to be raised to cover the cost of the COLA for those who do. So the worker not only gets hammered by inflating prices in the economy diminishing their buying power, the worker also gets tagged further by an additional reduction created though the tax obligation to cover the COLA. A Value of Wages Index rather than a COLA would put both parties in the same economic boat. If wages aren't going up, then COLA won't go up. Maybe that would encourage those who receive to be interested in the status of the community as a whole rather than their own 'special interest'.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-10-19 09:06  

#3  borgboy, while getting old is not for sissies,it should not automatically entitle you to a government handout. I am not getting a raise this year, and probably won't get one next year.
By the way, I am 61 also.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2009-10-19 06:50  

#2  They vote. Voters get the payola.
Posted by: gromky   2009-10-19 02:31  

#1  Its not easy being/getting older. Betcha the (opinion) writer is a meer yoot! Seriously, the aches and pains which stop being occassional and start being constant do bring a sense of selfishness to the scene. I am 61 and on long term disability leave from my school teaching position due to a (near total) disintigration of the heel in my left foot. So what happens, I was in the middle of a cross walk two weeks ago and get slammed by a car in my right leg and foot. Un erringly, the vehicle in question was a delapidated 15 year old Pontiac - not an "E" model Mercedes. Also unerringly, the driver was destitute, devoid of both insurance and license. Last, the driver in question was not born in our once great nation - I will leave ethnicity to your imagination. Hint: Tucson is 50 miles north of Mexico Lindo.
Now i have quantitatively more aches and pains - so don't get all in a hissy fit over seniors scoring $250 from the Big "O". I'd gladly turn in the money for a decrease in aches and pains. I couldn't be a spoiled brat if I wanted to - my four step-children amply fit/fill that role.
Posted by: borgboy   2009-10-19 01:03  

00:00